'I once fought gay boxer' - Monmouth MP denies he is homophobic (From South Wales Argus)

I can appreciate the point he is trying to make but perhaps denying being homophobic and then showing videos of him punching a gay man isn't exactly the greatest way of getting his point across.

im sure 99% of parents would prefer their children werent gay, unfortunately common sense is no longer legal tender.

He is right. The Tory faithful will be up in arms about this. He, of course, would much prefer the rabid views of the vast majority of Tory party members on this subject, amongst others, to be kept under wraps.

Regardless of whether parents want their children to be gay (I personally couldn't give a monkey's as long as they're happy), some children *are* going to be gay.

Given that fact, I'm sure those parents would prefer their children to be able to get married to the person they love and want to share their life with. And if a religious organisation, like the Quakers and some liberal synagogues, want to perform the ceremony, who the hell is David Davies to say they can't?

The man's a complete idiot.

Its like saying i am not racist because i have an asian friend. What a stupid excuse to use. If you must make this an issue do so with relevant points not stupid comments.

Dee-Gee wrote:
Regardless of whether parents want their children to be gay (I personally couldn't give a monkey's as long as they're happy), some children *are* going to be gay.

Given that fact, I'm sure those parents would prefer their children to be able to get married to the person they love and want to share their life with. And if a religious organisation, like the Quakers and some liberal synagogues, want to perform the ceremony, who the hell is David Davies to say they can't?

The man's a complete idiot.

Totally aginst this legislation which will be an open door for the look at me im gay brigade and i will get married in your church like it or not, a bitlike the hoteliers who have recently seen their wishes and beliefs trampled in the name of gay diversity and equality, your gay get over yourselves but dont ram your ways down our throats, we really arent interested, and good luck with this down the mosque, the locals will burn it down before a gay wedding happens there, its just asking for trouble.

I understand the confusion, but this is nothing like the hoteliers case, and the legislation applies equally to mosques.

If you provide a business service, you can't pick and choose who you supply it to on the basis of their race, gender or sexual orientation, whether you run the business from home (like the B&B) or not.

But if you provide a religious experience, like marriage, then you CAN pick and choose who you provide it to. Churches and mosques are absolutely allowed to discrimate in this area, and I completely support their right to do so. There are churches that won't marry divorcees, for example, or infertile couples.

Some divorcees have tried to play the "Human Rights" angle on this at the EU, but ironically, that very same Human Rights Act is what protects churches (and mosques) from having to conduct ceremonies that go against their faith (Article 9, Freedom of Conscience)

So, without significant changes to the Human Rights Act, there is no legal way for churches or mosques or synagogues to be forced to conduct gay weddings. It just lets those who want to do so, crack on in peace. It's been the law in a lot of countries (Spain, Argentina, Canada...) since 2000, and to my knowledge no-one has been able to make a church do a gay wedding. It's just scaremongering.

The Gwent MP said on his Twitter account:"Once got knocked around the ring by gay boxer. Respect & like, so not bigoted''.

Hold the front page for his next announcement ''I have a Swedish au-pair so not racist''.

Same old Tory's, same old nasty party.

I am neither religious or homophobic. But in a way I feel that this move denigrates my 31 years of marriage (on Wednesday). Marriage is between a husband and a wife; a man and a woman; But ultimately I don't care...personally nothing can alter things for me. I have been married for 31 years end of. I once thought that as a white, British, tax-paying, heterosexual, married, female, able-bodied, non-terrorist person I was probably amongst the most discriminated group..not a lot has happen to change my view.

Fence sitting just gets you a sore posterior! I don't care for Homosexual oppression via their throw-away term of homophobia/c. It seems every time someone indicates a reluctance they get called this name, and put under legal threat or silenced. Saying NO seems not to get through to the Gays. I just find the whole homophobic tag bullying. If I disagree its NO get it ? Whilst I do not have a religion either, I can respect those that do, and if they want to oppose Gays Getting married in church according to their belief, then fair enough. Belief is very personal, we undermine that right at our very peril. gays won't be happy until they bring the church down or make it a farce.

Dee-Gee wrote:
I understand the confusion, but this is nothing like the hoteliers case, and the legislation applies equally to mosques.

If you provide a business service, you can't pick and choose who you supply it to on the basis of their race, gender or sexual orientation, whether you run the business from home (like the B&B) or not.

But if you provide a religious experience, like marriage, then you CAN pick and choose who you provide it to. Churches and mosques are absolutely allowed to discrimate in this area, and I completely support their right to do so. There are churches that won't marry divorcees, for example, or infertile couples.

Some divorcees have tried to play the "Human Rights" angle on this at the EU, but ironically, that very same Human Rights Act is what protects churches (and mosques) from having to conduct ceremonies that go against their faith (Article 9, Freedom of Conscience)

So, without significant changes to the Human Rights Act, there is no legal way for churches or mosques or synagogues to be forced to conduct gay weddings. It just lets those who want to do so, crack on in peace. It's been the law in a lot of countries (Spain, Argentina, Canada...) since 2000, and to my knowledge no-one has been able to make a church do a gay wedding. It's just scaremongering.

very factual and enlightening, and if correct why on earth are politicians even discussing it, its irrelevant, will change nothing, they seem to love talking nonsense while people in fuel poverty freeze and benefit claimants go hungry, 23 food banks in wales and counting, its like the victorian times are on their way back.

Hopefully DD will be sacked for his comments and the condescending attempt to try and prove he is not homophobic.

Mervyn James wrote:
Fence sitting just gets you a sore posterior! I don't care for Homosexual oppression via their throw-away term of homophobia/c. It seems every time someone indicates a reluctance they get called this name, and put under legal threat or silenced. Saying NO seems not to get through to the Gays. I just find the whole homophobic tag bullying. If I disagree its NO get it ? Whilst I do not have a religion either, I can respect those that do, and if they want to oppose Gays Getting married in church according to their belief, then fair enough. Belief is very personal, we undermine that right at our very peril. gays won't be happy until they bring the church down or make it a farce.

If you respect those that do have a religion, why are you trying to stop them marrying homosexual couples if their religion says it's OK?

You're right when you say religion is very personal - so why should we continue the ridiculous situation of the law dictating to religions who they can and can't marry?

It should be up to the individual religions to decide for themselves.

HeyJudeB4Beatles wrote:
I am neither religious or homophobic. But in a way I feel that this move denigrates my 31 years of marriage (on Wednesday). Marriage is between a husband and a wife; a man and a woman; But ultimately I don't care...personally nothing can alter things for me. I have been married for 31 years end of. I once thought that as a white, British, tax-paying, heterosexual, married, female, able-bodied, non-terrorist person I was probably amongst the most discriminated group..not a lot has happen to change my view.

"White, British, tax-paying, heterosexual, married, female, able-bodied, non-terrorist persons" being among the most discriminated groups...that is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

When did your *lack* of a disability last prevent you from getting on a bus? When did someone last assume you had violent tendancies because you were white? When did someone spit on you and call you names in the street for holding your husband's hand?

A few weeks volunteering with Scope would do wonders for your sense of victimhood, believe me.

HeyJudeB4Beatles wrote:
I am neither religious or homophobic. But in a way I feel that this move denigrates my 31 years of marriage (on Wednesday). Marriage is between a husband and a wife; a man and a woman; But ultimately I don't care...personally nothing can alter things for me. I have been married for 31 years end of. I once thought that as a white, British, tax-paying, heterosexual, married, female, able-bodied, non-terrorist person I was probably amongst the most discriminated group..not a lot has happen to change my view.

'as a white, British, tax-paying, heterosexual, married, female, able-bodied, non-terrorist person'.............
...You forgot to insert 'bloody stupid' between terrorist and person.

I agree with both Howie and Dee-Gee on Judes comment. Lacks any truth or merit aside.

As for the gay marriage thing, why not. If some people feel that it has undermined their heterosexual marriage such as Jude (above) then you really have to reassess your own situation.

As to Merv's comment, the church has been a farce for far longer than the acceptance of homosexuality.

I would like Jude to explain how someone else getting married undermines her own marriage. Come on Jude, explain your thoughts or was it just a throw away comment?

"Davies also said to the BBC: "I think most parents would prefer their children not to be gay" in an interview yesterday morning."

Nasty, nasty...goodness knows what his opinions are on transgendered children - probably thinks they should be left out on the mountainside to die, or something! Dee-Gee mentions Argentina and, yes, this once military dictatorship has matured much in the last few decades and does indeed have much more progressive and egalitarian laws with regard to LGBT issues. In fact just this very year, Argentina has become the only country in the world so far to make discrimination on the grounds of gender identity illegal. Britain, on the other hand, does not and never has had even one openly transgender MP in either the House of Commons or the Lords. Now, under the philosophy of which gave birth to the USA I, as a transgender person, could turn around and refuse to pay my taxes: i.e. No taxation without representation, eh?;)

Yes, and I bet some of his friends are black/Jewish/women.

I'm not entirely sure that there are any black Jewish women in Monmouthshire.

But if there are I am sure David Davies would have no issue in boxing any of them.

He's not a bigot you know.

Katie Re-Registered wrote:
"Davies also said to the BBC: "I think most parents would prefer their children not to be gay" in an interview yesterday morning."

Nasty, nasty...goodness knows what his opinions are on transgendered children - probably thinks they should be left out on the mountainside to die, or something! Dee-Gee mentions Argentina and, yes, this once military dictatorship has matured much in the last few decades and does indeed have much more progressive and egalitarian laws with regard to LGBT issues. In fact just this very year, Argentina has become the only country in the world so far to make discrimination on the grounds of gender identity illegal. Britain, on the other hand, does not and never has had even one openly transgender MP in either the House of Commons or the Lords. Now, under the philosophy of which gave birth to the USA I, as a transgender person, could turn around and refuse to pay my taxes: i.e. No taxation without representation, eh?;)

not this old chestnut, there hasnt been any transgender mps because no transgender person with the qualifications has applied, this attitude is the reason mps are so dumbed down at the moment, we gotta have women,, asians, gays etc, whether they are any good at the jiob or not, promotion on ability and not targets is whats required.

As for the representation issue, as your probably 0.0001 of the population, i suppose one transgender mp every 200 years will about do it.

Promotion on ability would be a wonderful thing, but in the light of DD's breathtakingly stupid comments, it doesn't seem likely that we have it.

"...not this old chestnut, there hasnt been any transgender mps because no transgender person with the qualifications has applied"

Hmm...maybe, but MP is actually one of the few jobs in which the candidate need not have any qualifications or experience whatesoever. Could just be that the majority of transpeople are far too over-qualified for a duffer's job in parliament;)!

Btw...the accompanying photo of the member for Monmouth in his wannabe hardman pose does make me giggle:))) Meethinks he could be suffering from Putinitis: y'know the condition that seems to psychologically compel male politicians to be seen to be engaged in 'action man' type pursuits such as boxing, playing judo, stripping off the the waist and riding bareback in photoshoots...all with intention of proving how 'ard they are...oooeerrrr(!)

Katie Re-Registered wrote:
"...not this old chestnut, there hasnt been any transgender mps because no transgender person with the qualifications has applied"

Hmm...maybe, but MP is actually one of the few jobs in which the candidate need not have any qualifications or experience whatesoever. Could just be that the majority of transpeople are far too over-qualified for a duffer's job in parliament;)!

Btw...the accompanying photo of the member for Monmouth in his wannabe hardman pose does make me giggle:))) Meethinks he could be suffering from Putinitis: y'know the condition that seems to psychologically compel male politicians to be seen to be engaged in 'action man' type pursuits such as boxing, playing judo, stripping off the the waist and riding bareback in photoshoots...all with intention of proving how 'ard they are...oooeerrrr(!)

I imagine the left are working away desperately trying to find a transgender mp for a trendy london constituency, or im sure brighton would love one.

Beyond parody.

Good to see such sense on these discussion boards.

Dee-Gee wrote:

Mervyn James wrote:
Fence sitting just gets you a sore posterior! I don't care for Homosexual oppression via their throw-away term of homophobia/c. It seems every time someone indicates a reluctance they get called this name, and put under legal threat or silenced. Saying NO seems not to get through to the Gays. I just find the whole homophobic tag bullying. If I disagree its NO get it ? Whilst I do not have a religion either, I can respect those that do, and if they want to oppose Gays Getting married in church according to their belief, then fair enough. Belief is very personal, we undermine that right at our very peril. gays won't be happy until they bring the church down or make it a farce.

If you respect those that do have a religion, why are you trying to stop them marrying homosexual couples if their religion says it's OK?

You're right when you say religion is very personal - so why should we continue the ridiculous situation of the law dictating to religions who they can and can't marry?

It should be up to the individual religions to decide for themselves.

It's not our business, that's all I am saying, as we are not religious or in any part of it, let them get on with it. I believe it undermines equal rights, not re-enforces them. I can't see the point of this relentless assault on belief except bullying and power play by the Gay lobby. Who are the oppressed here ?

Deaf people in America, joined together to oppose Gays running deaf campaigns for their own benefit, and stood up to being called homophobes, tand saw the Gay sector back off and admit defeat and they had gone too far.

It was clear gays were joining established groupings/charities/
religions with the express intention of exploiting the position to pursue gay rights, regardless what the original concept of a charity or belief was, this far, no more the deaf said, our groups are about deaf support not Gay rights and hearing loss was at the core of this, we won't support you changing this.

It seems Christiana are more vulnerable to bullying, than the deaf are. Let's see Gays take on Islam see how far they get there....

The gays willbe steering well clear of tackling islam, they only harass the left leaning civilised.

Well said David Davis - As for those saying why not allow homosexuals to marry in church if their religion allows it,if we are talking about Christianity, which is why the established churches are in existence anyway, Christianity takes its instruction and belief from its Holy Book - the Bible. and in that bible which we Christians believe to be the sacred word of God it states quite clearly what God has to say on the matter. Read Romans Chapter one and verses 22 - 32. As far as we are concerned God has the last say on it. I agree with Shillabeers nemesis. If you want to insult someones faith and religion try doing to Islam! Good Luck with that!

Oriel, that sounds worryingly like it came from the Westbobo Baptist Church.

Mervyn, it's not a huge gay conspiracy theory. Many people these days just think people of any sexuality should be able to live happily, as they wish, without being told what do to by a 2,000 year old superstition.

What a load of pompous claptrap!

I don't like the idea of gay marriage. because it was meant for the purpose of creating permanent parents for their own created children.
Does that make me homophobic? ... Likewise, I hate what our government is doing to us right now.
Does that make me a traitor?
Do me a favour! Get off your hobby horses and get real.

Ultimately, I don't care what other people get up to, that's their business. But I resent the idea of others being forced to like it or be labelled a 'something'ist. ... If everybody felt the same about everything we'd all be automatons with no mind and no ability to be 'different' I'm sure we'd like that even less!

People mostly have the freedom to do as they like, others still have the freedom to think what they like.

I fought the law and the law won!

What a gay day!

Oriel Bufton wrote:
Well said David Davis - As for those saying why not allow homosexuals to marry in church if their religion allows it,if we are talking about Christianity, which is why the established churches are in existence anyway, Christianity takes its instruction and belief from its Holy Book - the Bible. and in that bible which we Christians believe to be the sacred word of God it states quite clearly what God has to say on the matter. Read Romans Chapter one and verses 22 - 32. As far as we are concerned God has the last say on it. I agree with Shillabeers nemesis. If you want to insult someones faith and religion try doing to Islam! Good Luck with that!

Well, Romans may be the last word as far as *you're* concrned, but the Quaker and Unitarian Christian traditions think differently.

Why do you - and others on this discussion board - want to stop them from marrying gay couples?

And for the seventieth time... This. Law. Applies. To. Islam. Too.

Shillabeers nemesis wrote:
The gays willbe steering well clear of tackling islam, they only harass the left leaning civilised.

What left-leaning civilised people are being harrassed by gays? How does this legislation affect most people at all, infact?

Gay marraige... for goodness sake... grow up...I mean come on...really. Left wing pathetic nonsense. At a time when the elderly are freezing to death, young lives are being thrown away in a pointless war based on a lie, and inocent children are subjected to chronic grinding neglect and abuse by parents who are the product of their own abusive upbringing. I mean really.

username2 wrote:
Oriel, that sounds worryingly like it came from the Westbobo Baptist Church.

Mervyn, it's not a huge gay conspiracy theory. Many people these days just think people of any sexuality should be able to live happily, as they wish, without being told what do to by a 2,000 year old superstition.

They aren't being told how to run their lives, they are being told they can't use churches to get married in,there are thousands of other venues they can use....Their rights are no more than anyone else's, that's equality, and equality doesn't mean some can ride roughshod over a 2,000 yr old belief.

We aren't talking a downtrodden sector here but one already with far too much to say.... and far too much clout to say it. that assumes it can do whatever it likes, it can't, I can't, you can't do what you like, I find it mostly hypocritical anyway,and always suss when someone tries to respond with 'cest la vie' as an answer, we know it's a cop out.

The words"Gay" and "Marriage", don't really go together.

A homosexual relationship or liaison is more accurate!

The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married.

Marriage is used to describe "when a man and woman join together", 2 males can't join together nor can 2 females! They are not designed that way, it simply perpetuates gender confusion!
So the term is inaccurate, physically and physiologically impossible!

The "sex act" is neither normal or moral. Does not produce any form of offspring, children can only be produced, except by normal procreative ways!
It produces diseases, infections an complications, physiological problems thro its actions, shortens life, it is neither healthy or acceptable.

So there is no such thing as a gay marriage!
The church would do well to avoid promoting this current antisocial lifestyle!

The problem is they are still allowing Gay priests in, the trojan horse, without consistency they look vulnerable,I think people would respect more if they stuck to their guns. It's bad enough sex education in schools is being hijacked by homosexual rights... given they are active in wanting age of consent reduced as well, what for, we can well specualte.

They have perpetuate the lifestyle, and need to recruit younger and younger.

"Train up a child in the way (they think) he should go: and when he is old, he will not "depart" from it..................
...

Teach it in the schools, from books, literature, and it gets instilled!

The "kings new clothes" spring to mind, one day people will wake up and realise (with horror) what they have done, it will b too late for some!

Parcel is talking utter twaddle. Of course two men (or women) can marry - and "join together" - I wont explain details. They can bring up kids also via adoption and other ways. I would rather see a happy, cared for child being bought up by loving gay parents - than see some of the shockingly bad parenting of 'normal' people that you see around Newport.
Couldn't care less about the venue - many people get married in a church not because of religious beliefs but because it is somewhere nice to have the photos - should they be banned as well? - coz that would probably be the end of many country churches.

Quote:
Of course two men (or women) can marry - and "join together" - I wont explain details.


Of course they cant "join together" unless their genetically modified- I wont explain details.

I never mentioned they couldn't get "married", I said the word marriage didnt apply to a same sex couple!

As for "consummating their marriage", there is no normal gynaecological way of doing so, for same sex couples.
You can support and debate the concept as much as u like!
However you cannot change the facts to suit ur point of view!

Can anyone see a gay wedding in a mosque? Equality means everyone its a nonsensical farrago there are more urgent problems to solve

Carrot's wrote:
Parcel is talking utter twaddle. Of course two men (or women) can marry - and "join together" - I wont explain details. They can bring up kids also via adoption and other ways. I would rather see a happy, cared for child being bought up by loving gay parents - than see some of the shockingly bad parenting of 'normal' people that you see around Newport.
Couldn't care less about the venue - many people get married in a church not because of religious beliefs but because it is somewhere nice to have the photos - should they be banned as well? - coz that would probably be the end of many country churches.

As I understand the birds and bees, you need a male and a female to produce a child. That IS nature they haven't created a human alternative as yet. Even if religion is against and you oppose, you cannot oppose nature itself.

Bad parenting is an side-issue, there are no bad homosexual parents ? Adoption, a white homosexual won't be given the option of adopting a black/ethnic child (Nor a homosexual who is UKIP lol).

oops what have I started ! another homosexual campaign for equal rights there.... I tend to think it unnatural, children need a Mum and a Dad, not two mums or two dads or whatever.... I'm staggered people are attacked for having the view.

Carrot's wrote:
Parcel is talking utter twaddle. Of course two men (or women) can marry - and "join together" - I wont explain details. They can bring up kids also via adoption and other ways. I would rather see a happy, cared for child being bought up by loving gay parents - than see some of the shockingly bad parenting of 'normal' people that you see around Newport.
Couldn't care less about the venue - many people get married in a church not because of religious beliefs but because it is somewhere nice to have the photos - should they be banned as well? - coz that would probably be the end of many country churches.

As I understand the birds and bees, you need a male and a female to produce a child. That IS nature they haven't created a human alternative as yet. Even if religion is against and you oppose, you cannot oppose nature itself.

Bad parenting is an side-issue, there are no bad homosexual parents ? Adoption, a white homosexual won't be given the option of adopting a black/ethnic child (Nor a homosexual who is UKIP lol).

oops what have I started ! another homosexual campaign for equal rights there.... I tend to think it unnatural, children need a Mum and a Dad, not two mums or two dads or whatever.... I'm staggered people are attacked for having the view.

David Davies might be a PR nightmare but he's a good constituency MP.

I'd rather have someone who worked hard for his constituents than someone who was politically correct and just wanted to rip the taxpayers off.

And this is a democracy. At least he's upfront about what he believes and can be voted out if the voters disagree with his views.

Howie' wrote:
The Gwent MP said on his Twitter account:"Once got knocked around the ring by gay boxer. Respect & like, so not bigoted''.

Hold the front page for his next announcement ''I have a Swedish au-pair so not racist''.

Same old Tory's, same old nasty party.

Leave it out Howie. Yes this guys not doing himself any favours but the 'nasty party' slur is hilarious coming from someone who supports Mandelson, Vaz, Ed Balls and Gordon 'just some bigot' Brown.

Anne teak wrote:
David Davies might be a PR nightmare but he's a good constituency MP.

I'd rather have someone who worked hard for his constituents than someone who was politically correct and just wanted to rip the taxpayers off.

And this is a democracy. At least he's upfront about what he believes and can be voted out if the voters disagree with his views.

Don't do politically Correct, no-one should be doing it. I think I am in PC overkill, what with racists, bigots, homophobics, whatever terms, I can't be bothered with any of it, if I disagree its NO, easy. Just try it.

The individual still has the ultimate right to disagree, when they say we haven't then start to worry. These are attempts to do that, we WILL oppose.

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Howie' wrote:
The Gwent MP said on his Twitter account:"Once got knocked around the ring by gay boxer. Respect & like, so not bigoted''.

Hold the front page for his next announcement ''I have a Swedish au-pair so not racist''.

Same old Tory's, same old nasty party.

Leave it out Howie. Yes this guys not doing himself any favours but the 'nasty party' slur is hilarious coming from someone who supports Mandelson, Vaz, Ed Balls and Gordon 'just some bigot' Brown.

Now, now LMA........The Tory's worked **** hard to earn the name of the 'Nasty Party' and I for one think it is very apt.

Now perhaps you will tell me where I have said that I support those you mention or the Labour Party in general, I don't and will not vote Labour again. Unlike you LMA I do not follow a Political party slavishly and unquestioning of that party. Problem I have is where does a left of centre voter go? For a disenchanted Tory it's easy I suppose, BNP or UKIP but for me I think it will either be Green or a spoiled paper.

Howie' wrote:

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Howie' wrote:
The Gwent MP said on his Twitter account:"Once got knocked around the ring by gay boxer. Respect & like, so not bigoted''.

Hold the front page for his next announcement ''I have a Swedish au-pair so not racist''.

Same old Tory's, same old nasty party.

Leave it out Howie. Yes this guys not doing himself any favours but the 'nasty party' slur is hilarious coming from someone who supports Mandelson, Vaz, Ed Balls and Gordon 'just some bigot' Brown.

Now, now LMA........The Tory's worked **** hard to earn the name of the 'Nasty Party' and I for one think it is very apt.

Now perhaps you will tell me where I have said that I support those you mention or the Labour Party in general, I don't and will not vote Labour again. Unlike you LMA I do not follow a Political party slavishly and unquestioning of that party. Problem I have is where does a left of centre voter go? For a disenchanted Tory it's easy I suppose, BNP or UKIP but for me I think it will either be Green or a spoiled paper.

Apologies then Howie. I seem to recall a spirited defence of Labour's appalling last tenure by your good self. Easy mistake. Agree the BNP could be termed 'nasty'. As for where someone 'left of centre' goes, aren't the Communists recruiting? They seem quite nice people, at least the ones in N Korea, Cuba and China seem to smile a lot. Even the Greek variety are probably good chaps.

Come on guys and gals
Dai The 'Tory Tornado' is more like a 'Bag of Wind' and is not a 'big hitter', as he proved in his farcical expoits in the boxing ring.
He's made his homophobic views very clear, so let's just leave him to alone to consider his next clanger as he gets his sore butt off the fence.

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Howie' wrote:

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Howie' wrote:
The Gwent MP said on his Twitter account:"Once got knocked around the ring by gay boxer. Respect & like, so not bigoted''.

Hold the front page for his next announcement ''I have a Swedish au-pair so not racist''.

Same old Tory's, same old nasty party.

Leave it out Howie. Yes this guys not doing himself any favours but the 'nasty party' slur is hilarious coming from someone who supports Mandelson, Vaz, Ed Balls and Gordon 'just some bigot' Brown.

Now, now LMA........The Tory's worked **** hard to earn the name of the 'Nasty Party' and I for one think it is very apt.

Now perhaps you will tell me where I have said that I support those you mention or the Labour Party in general, I don't and will not vote Labour again. Unlike you LMA I do not follow a Political party slavishly and unquestioning of that party. Problem I have is where does a left of centre voter go? For a disenchanted Tory it's easy I suppose, BNP or UKIP but for me I think it will either be Green or a spoiled paper.

Apologies then Howie. I seem to recall a spirited defence of Labour's appalling last tenure by your good self. Easy mistake. Agree the BNP could be termed 'nasty'. As for where someone 'left of centre' goes, aren't the Communists recruiting? They seem quite nice people, at least the ones in N Korea, Cuba and China seem to smile a lot. Even the Greek variety are probably good chaps.

I'll make a spirited defence of anyone I think is in the right, I believe I even supported you in one thread.

So you think 'left of centre' equates to a Communist leaning do you, LMA?lol. Seeing 'Reds under the beds' as well I expect? McCarthyism alive and well in you world?

This might be one of the reasons the Tory's are seen as the 'nasty party' LMA!

A report out yesterday shows that thousands of kids are going hungry in Schools as low paid working family's can't afford school dinners. Youngsters have been seen stealing toast and begging food from other kids. Teachers are using their own money in some Schools to buy children a lunch.

PM Cameron at PMQ's said he has put on a few pounds "would have to watch his weight", I would suggest he try's the food bank diet which seems to be working for two hundred thousand other family's.

Thatcher took away the kids School milk and Cameron is taking away their lunch.

"Now, now LMA........The Tory's worked **** hard to earn the name of the 'Nasty Party' and I for one think it is very apt".

Here we are again, happy as can be
All good friends and jolly good company
Driving round the town, out upon a spree
All good friends and jolly good company
Never mind the weather, never mind the rain
Now we're all together, whoops she goes again
La Dee dah Dee dah, la Dee dah Dee Dee
All good friends and jolly good company...........
All together now!

All this rhetoric is simply "political point scoring" and has nothing to do with this Argus report!

"Stick to the script"!

parcel wrote:
"Now, now LMA........The Tory's worked **** hard to earn the name of the 'Nasty Party' and I for one think it is very apt".

Here we are again, happy as can be
All good friends and jolly good company
Driving round the town, out upon a spree
All good friends and jolly good company
Never mind the weather, never mind the rain
Now we're all together, whoops she goes again
La Dee dah Dee dah, la Dee dah Dee Dee
All good friends and jolly good company...........
All together now!

All this rhetoric is simply "political point scoring" and has nothing to do with this Argus report!

"Stick to the script"!

"Stick to the script"!

What script is that Parcel? I have not seen it. If you are referring to the thread then I would respectfully suggest that your musical contribution was hardly a comment on what the MP for Monmouth had to say.

Are you now a moderator for this site? and that is why you feel suitably qualified to lecture me on the substance of my post's or are you the one who has complained about a couple of my posts and had them deleted? I do apologise if I offended your sensitivity's!

I think you will find that the vast majority of comments made on this site are on political subjects, e.g, Gypsy's, Council Parking, Crime, Newport's development....It's all political mate.......so, with the greatest of respect, if it's OK with you I will continue to make political comments on political threads, you may not see the relevance in my comment about the Tory party being the nasty party in reply to David Davies MP for Monmouth making a political comment about homosexuals but I would hope that some more enlightened than you would.

Just a tune for those that baulk at discussing politics. You don't have to guess parcel....Manic Street Preachers:


"The future teaches you to be alone
The present to be afraid and cold
So if I can shoot rabbits
Then I can shoot fascists"

"Bullets for your brain today
But we'll forget it all again
Monuments put from pen to paper
Turns me into a gutless wonder"

"And if you tolerate this
Then your children will be next
And if you tolerate this
Then your children will be next"

A bit more appropriate methinks.

Howie' wrote:

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Howie' wrote:

Llanmartinangel wrote:

Howie' wrote:
The Gwent MP said on his Twitter account:"Once got knocked around the ring by gay boxer. Respect & like, so not bigoted''.

Hold the front page for his next announcement ''I have a Swedish au-pair so not racist''.

Same old Tory's, same old nasty party.

Leave it out Howie. Yes this guys not doing himself any favours but the 'nasty party' slur is hilarious coming from someone who supports Mandelson, Vaz, Ed Balls and Gordon 'just some bigot' Brown.

Now, now LMA........The Tory's worked **** hard to earn the name of the 'Nasty Party' and I for one think it is very apt.

Now perhaps you will tell me where I have said that I support those you mention or the Labour Party in general, I don't and will not vote Labour again. Unlike you LMA I do not follow a Political party slavishly and unquestioning of that party. Problem I have is where does a left of centre voter go? For a disenchanted Tory it's easy I suppose, BNP or UKIP but for me I think it will either be Green or a spoiled paper.

Apologies then Howie. I seem to recall a spirited defence of Labour's appalling last tenure by your good self. Easy mistake. Agree the BNP could be termed 'nasty'. As for where someone 'left of centre' goes, aren't the Communists recruiting? They seem quite nice people, at least the ones in N Korea, Cuba and China seem to smile a lot. Even the Greek variety are probably good chaps.

I'll make a spirited defence of anyone I think is in the right, I believe I even supported you in one thread.

So you think 'left of centre' equates to a Communist leaning do you, LMA?lol. Seeing 'Reds under the beds' as well I expect? McCarthyism alive and well in you world?

This might be one of the reasons the Tory's are seen as the 'nasty party' LMA!

A report out yesterday shows that thousands of kids are going hungry in Schools as low paid working family's can't afford school dinners. Youngsters have been seen stealing toast and begging food from other kids. Teachers are using their own money in some Schools to buy children a lunch.

PM Cameron at PMQ's said he has put on a few pounds "would have to watch his weight", I would suggest he try's the food bank diet which seems to be working for two hundred thousand other family's.

Thatcher took away the kids School milk and Cameron is taking away their lunch.

I'm kind of curious how you think it's ok to mention the BNP in the same sentence as Tories but my drawing a parallel connection between socialists and communists illicits an abusive response but never mind. I was actually making the point thattherre are nasty politicians rather than one party per se. Bob Bright (Labour NCC leader) is hardly anyone's ideal dinner guest. As for child poverty I'm struggling to connect this to the Tories either. In the words of Liam Byrne (outgoing Labour treasury minister), 'all the money's gone', i.e. 'we squandered it and left the country in debt'. I'm not sure where the current coalition can get the money from to increase benefits since neither borrowing or tax increases are viable options. The issue of poverty is complex and most economists agree that, how ever much money you threw at it, you wouldn't solve it. Killing the hard working golden goose which coughs up more than half it's income already to fund an unprecedentedly high working age benefit bill is definitely not the answer.

It's a short political journey from right wing Tory to the BNP and quite a few Tory's have done it over the years on the other hand it's impossible that anyone who is genuinely 'left of centre' would join the Communist party of North Korea, I thought you would have known that. I was not being abusive more tongue in cheek.

'As for child poverty I'm struggling to connect this to the Tories either.The issue of poverty is complex'.

The issue of poverty is not complex, certainly not for the kids who are starving in school or their parents and others queuing at a food bank, an unprecedented phenomenon in post war history, It's not complex at all, the Tory's cut their benefits and their hungry.

"Killing the hard working golden goose which coughs up more than half it's income already to fund an unprecedentedly high working age benefit bill is definitely not the answer"

Average welfare spending as a proportion of GDP was 10.4% from 1979-1997 under the Conservatives, compared to 6.4% from 1997-2010 under Labour, National debt was 36% of GDP when the financial crisis started in 2008 compared to 42% in 1997 under John Major's Tory's, in 2010 the National debt was 52% of GDP, the second lowest in the G7. It was 80.6% in 2011 and forecast to be 86.7% this financial year under Cameron's Tory's.

If everyone paid their taxes of-course from wealthy individuals, multi nationals to the biggest welfare recipient family in the UK, the Royal family then we would not have to worry so much about the benefit bill. Strange how some in the media and their readers pay lip service to that objective but are quite happy to continue attacking the poorest in society, blaming everything on benefit scroungers/soakers.

http://www.ukpublics
pending.co.uk/index.
php