Breaking News: Same sex marriage

I was thinking that this was worthy of a topic unto itself.

Abbott prevents conscience vote on same-sex marriage

THE Greens push to legalise same-sex marriage is doomed, with Tony Abbott confirming he will deny Liberal Party MPs a conscience vote on the issue, even if Labor grants its MPs a free vote.

This of course is not a surprise as there is no way that Tony Abbott with his religious background and complete lack of empathy would ever tolerate anything that does not fit outside his narrow view of what society is.

Nor does Tony Abbott have any vision about what society could be, nor what it should be.

You will have to indulge me and my somewhat odd taste in music but this was brought to mind.

Quote: Maddest of all, so see life as it is and not as it should be.

127 comments on “Breaking News: Same sex marriage

  1. Mr. Abbott is going to stop same sex marriages. He cannot do this unless either Labor or others vote with him.

    Another false claim as to his ability to do so.

    Why is it called same sex marriage. Would not a better title be same gender marriage.

    Surely if marriage has any value in society, it has to be more than about sex?

    I thought it was about love, respect and committing yourself to your partner for life.

    I would also like to remind Mr. Abbott and his supporters, that this has nothing to do with religion. What is being sought is a civil union, which predates Christian and other religions.

  2. The point is that if Labor allows a conscience vote on the issue of marriage equality then there are going to be some MPs who will vote against this. Therefore Tony Abbott knows that if he does NOT allow his people a conscience vote that there is no way that any legislation will ever get through.

    Therefore it is goodbye to any chance of marriage equality while Tony Abbott leads the Liberal Party.

  3. Yes Min, it looks like yabot is simply playing politics with it, and using perhaps as a wedge against the Government. Or even trying to run the country from opposition.

    And yet they bleat on about alleged ‘political’ intent with the PM phoning a boy in Bali to offer her support (and actually progressing the issue)

    😯

  4. Tom, I think not just politically but ‘morally’…as a good RC Abbott would consider it his duty to prevent any likelihood of same sex marriage.

  5. I would like to see the journalists ask the gay Liberal MPs and Senators, out or not out, whether they would like to have a conscience vote on the issue.
    After all the journalists are not backward in asking Penny Wong for her views, so for balance ask the other side and yes there are gay Liberals.

  6. I can’t say I’m with CU as expressed; but probably am in spirit. Or, why not just call it marriage (simpliciter) or (universal) marriage or (equal) marriage?

    (Which is not to say I don’t still have some residual preference (based in a reluctance to coincidentally join league with conservative and/or religious forces) for the generic registration of (civil) union by the State, and the remaindering of the espousal of nomenclature for that registered relational circumstance (and whatever rituals and ceremonials are said to signify a solemnity sufficient for the formal recognition of relationship) to the choice(s) of the people concerned; but, there’s probably no acknowledged pragmatic means for unscrambling that 1901’s-Constitutional-and-thousands-of-years-of-traditional egg.)

    And Abbott, as ever, can and probably will go suck eggs and advocate same-same.

  7. As background: since 1856 Australia has had Civil Registrations of births, deaths and marriages.

    It makes no sense whatsoever that consenting adults cannot ‘marry’ or whatever you would like to call it.

    At present same sex people can be recognised as being in a defacto relationship, but due to the historical nature of this under common law it comes under Contract Law rather than Marriage Law.

    Therefore for any defacto partnership where there are no children in common, one of the partners is going to be at a disadvantage.

    It’s such a simple thing to fix…

  8. No change to the marriage act with out a plebiscite I say!
    If the support that is claimed for Gay marriage is really out there then the law will be changed but I don’t think that the majority of Aussies are willing to support any change on this issue, so the phrase ‘pissing into the wind ” seems apt to me.
    As for Tony Abbott’s tactics on this issue who can blame him for playing hard-ball with this very bad government? that is however part of his job description and given the fact that Gillard does not have enough support within her own party just why do you lot think that Tony should bail her out on an issue that he does not personally support anyway?

  9. Iain, JWHoward changed the Marriage Act without a plebiscite.

    Why should it need a majority opinion to do what you know is right? Especially given how easily public opinion is manipulated.

    Why is this government ‘bad’? Surely the definition of a bad government is one which isn’t able to get legislation through either Houses of Parliament.

    The Gillard government, a minority government has been able to get 200 pieces of legislation through BOTH Houses of Parliament, more than Howard was able to achieve in his first year of government.

    If this government is ‘bad’, then pray tell where are all of Tony Abbott’s AMENDMENTS to this legislation.

  10. A nicely balanced news story, Min.
    I’m enjoying the Renaissance at the SMH since Wilson got the chief’s job.

    On the issue of gay marriage I think ‘no change to the marriage act without a plebiscite I say!’ is a good call by Iain.

  11. “On the issue of gay marriage I think ‘no change to the marriage act without a plebiscite I say!’ is a good call by Iain”

    You are shitting me right?

    Considered yourself banned from the Gutter if not….

    As a friend of mine observed the other day, it’s not “gay marriage” it’s just “marriage”. When I went to lunch today, I didn’t have a “gay lunch” nor did I “gay park” my car. It’s just “marriage” something that whould be afforded to everyone.

    PS Go fuck yourself Ian you mindless redneck ignorant twat.

  12. Reb, if Yabbott holds firm to his convictions and Julia hers, then it will never happen.

    To get this past we may have to go to the people directly and they will vote in the affirmative.

  13. I thought I read recently that 76 per cent of Australians support gay marriage, and if those statistics are true then I am at odds as to why our political leaders are against it. Abbott I can understand – he’s controlled by his own outdated religious beliefs. Gillard, well, I don’t know why she has an issue with it.

    But what the majority of Australians want is not the issue as far as I’m concerned. I don’t care if only five per cent support it. It really should be the right of the individuals concerned, no matter what anybody else thinks.

    The sad bit though is that those who disapprove of it are very vociferous in also condemning it. Little too, do they have any consideration on how it effects gay people and the ensuing trauma.

  14. ‘I read recently that 76 per cent of Australians support gay marriage’

    That’s why a plebiscite may work if the politicians don’t act.

    Australians are not Americans, we are a fair minded lot.

  15. Plebiscites are not binding though el gordo – at best would only put more pressure on the polititians, but seeing as they’re the ones who would have to organise a plebiscite, it will never happen 😦

  16. Miglo, I am not setting out to upset Reb, but I suspect the majority of Australians do not have a view either way. Most I believe have little interest and are of the belief, if that is what some want, so be it.

    There are a small number of what I label religious bigots, who do not have any right to interfere in the lives of others.

    Now personally, it might lead to me being involved in another family wedding.

    Now do not get upset, I feel the same way about my youngest daughter if she came to me, saying she was marrying the father of her two girls.

    My question to both daughters. Why? Why is it necessary? How will it change your life. I am not a fan of marriage, full stop.

    Reb, why do they say same sex, why not, same gender.

  17. Has ToM ever had anything to say that was worth reading anyway 🙄 Might as well delete all his comments

  18. el gordo, a plebiscite can be a dangerous route to take.

    Remember how Mr. Howard destroyed any hope of us becoming an republic for a decade or more.

    It is very hard to word one that does not manipulate the question and give a negative answer. Once that occurs, the topic is dropped for many years.

    Politicians are there to lead. In this case, the time has probably come for the matter to Ber put to bed for once and all.

    The country is not going to collapsed because we allow some people to live life as they choose.

    It is not going to cost the taxpayer money. Maybe, no certainly new jobs will be created, catering to these weddings. Mow that cannot be a bad thing.

  19. reb @6.43pm, why don’t you say what you mean? lol

    Migs, after reading what Rann had to say, maybe Gillard’s in the same boat.

    Be that as it may, I don’t understand why allowing gay couples to marry would be tantamount to Barnyard’s daughters’ marriage prospects being rooned. I’d say that their chances might be rooned if they take after their father…. Just sayin’

  20. Jane its the catlick thing with Barney and Yabbott.

    They have a narrow view of reality and you can quote me on that.

  21. Min

    Iain, JWHoward changed the Marriage Act without a plebiscite.

    He clarified the act to reflect what was the view of the majority of the parliament in a rare bi-partisan agreement of the house.

    Why should it need a majority opinion to do what you know is right? Especially given how easily public opinion is manipulated.

    Because we live in a democracy where what is “right” is determined, not by a vocal minority, or by those holding the barrel of a gun, but by a majority of the people.

    Why is this government ‘bad’? Surely the definition of a bad government is one which isn’t able to get legislation through either Houses of Parliament.

    No the definition of a bad government is one that pursues bad policies, or administers good policies in an incompetent manner, Labor get a gurnsey on both counts here. That they can or can’t get legislation through the parliament has nothing to do with it.

    The Gillard government, a minority government has been able to get 200 pieces of legislation through BOTH Houses of Parliament, more than Howard was able to achieve in his first year of government.

    So? that proves nothing, they have been responsible for more maladministration in their last year of office than I have seen since the days of Edward Gough Whitlem who at least managed to do some things right.

    If this government is ‘bad’, then pray tell where are all of Tony Abbott’s AMENDMENTS to this legislation.

    🙄
    Its all in the numbers Min and you will see those amendments in spades once this bad government is quite rightfully thrown out of office.
    Look I understand that Labor and the Greens are well intentioned but we both know which road is paved with good intentions now don’t we?

    Reb

    I thought that I was banned at your blog anyway.

  22. Iain re “He clarified the act to reflect what was the view of the majority of the parliament in a rare bi-partisan agreement of the house.”

    Because at the time religious nut-jobs were lobbying heavily in Canberra.

    You statement also confirms that Gillard does not need to hold an election as demanded by Tony Abbott re the Carbon Tax..all that she needs in a majority vote in Parliament.

  23. Bacchus @8.51pm thank you for that..exactly, a plebiscite is nothing more than a glorified opinion poll, it being non-binding. Any changes to the Constitution must come via a Referrendum.

  24. So how do we demand a government give us a Referrendum?

    Here’s a bit of raw footage for Migs to enjoy over a latte.

  25. Yes Min a plebiscite is a glorified opinion poll but it has the advantage of the biggest possible sample size which means there can be no doubt about it accurately reflecting the mood of the people which is sort of the point. There are lots of claims about the levels of support fro same sex marriage that are usually based upon surveys of a thousand people or less.

    Miglo & El Gordo thanks I realise that now 😦

    Reb seems rather tetchy about being questioned or contradicted about anything even when I do so in the most polite and affable manner possible. Frankly I don’t understand why I am banned from his blog, unless its because I contradicted the group think there 😉

  26. El Gordo
    you must have been reading the Sandpit because Ray did a post on that clip today !

    Any thing that keeps the loonies in Lycra under control has to be good 🙂 😉 😆

  27. Iain, but as a plebiscite is non-binding there is not much point in spending hundreds and thousands of dollars on having one.

    Migs, I am likewise somewhat perplexed about Julia Gillard’s attitude to marriage equality which seems to be at odds with her other philosphies being atheist and unmarried.

    And precisely, you do something because it is the right thing to do not because a majority of Australians have an opinion one way or the other. It isn’t that long ago where black and white were unable to marry and their children’s births were registered in the station stock book rather than with the Registrar. I dare say that should a plebiscite have been held on this issue, a majority would have supported to maintain the status quo.

  28. Iain/el gordo, there are issues in the gay community that most Australians would be unaware of, if not ignorant to. These are issues that reb is very passionate about, and without his ‘contributions’ most here would still be oblivious to their existence.

    What the wider community fails to grasp are the emotional aspects of the issues on gay marriage within the gay community. The denial of right to marriage, the torment from non-gay people, being ignored by governments, no-one to turn to. Is it any wonder that there are, sadly, large numbers of young gay men taking their own lives?

    Knowing the despair that many gay people experience, we here at the Café support the right of them to experience the joys and the rights of ‘Holy’ marriage.

  29. ‘…with her other philosophies being atheist and unmarried.’

    More likely its because she wanted to be a small target from Yabbott’s barbs.

  30. You statement also confirms that Gillard does not need to hold an election as demanded by Tony Abbott re the Carbon Tax..all that she needs in a majority vote in Parliament.

    but .. but … but …

    😆 nice one Min 😉

  31. El gordo, I disagree. Everyone who knows Gillard’s background would have expected her to support or at least take a neutral stance on the issue of marriage equality – but she didn’t.

    On the issue of tactics it would have been far better for Gillard to support marriage equality and therefore bring to people’s attention what a narrow minded bigotted twat Tony Abbott truly is.

  32. So how do we demand a government give us a Referrendum?

    What part of the constitution do you wish to have changed el gordo? That’s what a referendum is for…

  33. Miglo

    Iain/el gordo, there are issues in the gay community that most Australians would be unaware of, if not ignorant to. These are issues that reb is very passionate about, and without his ‘contributions’ most here would still be oblivious to their existence.

    I think that you underestimate the wider community and their awareness on those issues probably because most of us don’t make any comment on them.

    What the wider community fails to grasp are the emotional aspects of the issues on gay marriage within the gay community. The denial of right to marriage, the torment from non-gay people, being ignored by governments, no-one to turn to. Is it any wonder that there are, sadly, large numbers of young gay men taking their own lives?

    What the Gay community and Reb fail to realise is that unless they truly take the people with them on this issue the result will not be the social affirmation for homosexuals but resentment that something as fundamental as marriage has been hijacked by a noisy minority. As for the young Gay men taking their own lives I do not think that changing the nature of marriage will make much difference to that. Its a tough life for anyone who is different to the mainstream it always has been and sadly I don’t think that is going to change any time soon no matter what changes are wrought to the Marriage Act.

    Knowing the despair that many gay people experience, we here at the Café support the right of them to experience the joys and the rights of ‘Holy’ marriage.

    Under our current legal regime there is nothing AT ALL that stops any gay couple openly sharing their lives which is something that I absolutely endorse and celebrate I just don’t think that the definition and legal meaning and understanding of marriage has to be changed to comfort the feelings or provide affirmation to homosexuals.

    Oh yeah and the Sandpit is my blog and Ray is one of my fellow authors there

  34. Iain re What the Gay community and Reb fail to realise is that unless they truly take the people with them on this issue the result will not be the social affirmation for homosexuals but resentment that something as fundamental as marriage has been hijacked by a noisy minority.

    I couldn’t disagree with you more strongly. There is one thing inherit about the Australian national character and this a sense of justice and fairplay.

    I would put forward that the “noisy minority” are the religious nut cases who somehow see marriage as ordained by their God and not as a matter of equality between people who love and respect each other.

  35. ‘I just don’t think that the definition and legal meaning and understanding of marriage has to be changed to comfort the feelings or provide affirmation to homosexuals.’

    I don’t agree, material and emotional security for all Australians is a worthwhile aim.

  36. Min
    I think that Both the religious people that you cite and the Gay activists meet the definition of “a noisy minority” my point about suggesting a plebiscite is that those in between these two extremes are the ones who have to be convinced on this issue and I think that at present that majority are being taken for granted by activists from both sides of this issue.
    Frankly I agree that we Aussies strongly support “fair play” but they do have to be convinced that any play proposed would actaully be fair and that it would not have unforeseen negative consequences.

    el gordo

    Material security is a worthwhile aim, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time so I am making a judgement call that the greater good is served by pleasing the majority rather than alienating them for the sake of the feelings of a small minority.

  37. I’ll go out on a limb here and say that the success /fail rate for both homosexual and heterosexual marriages would be about the same.
    In which case gay couples should have the same opportunity to give away half of their possessions to someone they loath (i.e. divorce)

  38. Luna, that happens whether a couple are married or not..all that it requires is to prove a co-dependent relationship. The law was changed in 1999.

  39. Reb..sometimes you need to ask, just so as to have the opportunity to shoot’em down in flames! For some strange reason Sparta of Phoenix Arizona came to mind. 😉

  40. I don’t see what the fuss is about…I tried it once and didn’t like it.

    As long as it’s not compulsory the option to marry should be open to all 😀

  41. Min
    My concern is all about the way that changes to the marriage act may well be used as a precedent (as it has been in Canada) to further change the nature of marriage and that children created within gay unions are of necessity produced with the participation of at least a third and sometimes a fourth party as well, this concerns me for various reasons but principally because children this created or very often alienated from at least one of their biological antecedents

  42. Iain, there is nothing within the Marriage Act which would change the status quo..what you have mentioned is a different thing entirely.

    Children come under the Family Law Act and not the Marriage Act.

    There is no precedence because these are different Acts.

    If I’m missing your point, just let me know.

  43. “this concerns me for various reasons but principally because children this created or very often alienated from at least one of their biological antecedents”

    What a load of bullshit. There is no evidence to suggest that whatsover..

    It’s just more imbecilic rantings from a “I’m not homophobic, but…” redneck nutjob.

    What about hetrosexual couples who have children through artifical insemination, donor programs and adoption, are you equally concerned for those children’s welfare?

    I have never encountered anyone who is so full of complete and utter bullshit on the blogosphere in my entire life..

    You like to masquerade as an intellectual, but you’re really just an unemployable redneck rural hick with a well-earned reputation for trolling.

    But it’s nice to see our taxpayers’ dollars funding your life of leisure and that stupid fkn Noddy car of yours. 🙄

    Tosser.

  44. Reb, well you and I both know what was on his mind (or what there is of it).

    There is ZILCH zip and zero which prevents marriage equality and the best that the trolls can do is some sort of odd argument about ‘flow on effects’ which of course is complete and utter cr*p because the law is the law is the law is the law.

    I’m just waiting for the argument that if the law is changed that Harry and his pet poodle will be allowed to marry.

  45. What about hetrosexual couples who have children through artifical insemination, donor programs and adoption, are you equally concerned for those children’s welfare?

    Took the words out of my mouth, reb.

    I still don’t understand all the angst about marriage and who can join the club. Who cares whether two people of the same gender love each other enough to put up with each other for a long time?

    Why is their love and commitment to each other so inferior that it can’t be formalised by a wedding and a piece of paper?

    I wish people who are so vehemently opposed to gay marriage were as committed to doing something about climate change and pollution.

    Anyway, we have to keep plugging away on this issue until political parties realise we won’t be rooned if gay people can marry and have a piece of paper and cake and, most importantly, presents.

  46. My sentiments exactly Jane.

    As a friend* of mine referred to the other day, it’s not about “gay marriage” or “same sex marriage” it’s just about “marriage”

    “When I parked my car this morning, I didn’t gay park it”

    “When I went to lunch today, I didn’t have a gay lunch”

    “Why should the concept of marriage be any different.”

    *Stephen Estcourt QC

  47. Reb, we’ll get there in the end because this is something that is right.

    The whole thing does not compute because all Anti Discrimination law in Australia states that you cannot treat people differently because of gender or race or culture.

    It’s a basic fact and the way that things should be.

  48. Reb

    What a load of bullshit. There is no evidence to suggest that whatsoever..

    Well there is actaully like the case of a father who has had his name removed from the birth certificate of his child in favour of the mother’s lesbian partner in NSW I believe.

    It’s just more imbecilic rantings from a “I’m not homophobic, but…” redneck nutjob.

    The only one frothing at the mouth and ranting here is you…

    What about heterosexual couples who have children through artificial insemination, donor programs and adoption, are you equally concerned for those children’s welfare?

    Yes I am as it happens.

    I have never encountered anyone who is so full of complete and utter bullshit on the blogosphere in my entire life..

    Well you need to get out more then Reb 😉

    You like to masquerade as an intellectual, but you’re really just an unemployable redneck rural hick with a well-earned reputation for trolling.

    Nah I have no tickets on myself mate I’m just an ordinary bloke who likes to have a good argument.

    But it’s nice to see our taxpayers’ dollars funding your life of leisure and that stupid fkn Noddy car of yours. 🙄

    If that were true it would be so, sadly for you it isn’t

    Look mate I am very easy going I think that it takes all types to make the world. Now I have long been an advocate for the right of every person to love entirety as they please with any other consenting adult, search my blog and you will find no evidence to the contrary, but I don’t agree with changing the definition of a marriage in the marriage act, as it happens I have long advocated for some sort of civil union arrangement for Gay couples.
    My position is neither fearful of homosexuals or is it evidence of any hatred for them either so drop the rancour and bile and consider that if you want to change the status quo then you will have to try persuasion because carrying on like a pork chop is not going to win any hearts or minds .

  49. “search my blog ”

    Thanks. But I’ll pass.

    As has been mentioned on many other sites, all your inflamatory comments are designed to do, is to drive traffic to your own fledgling web site where you and “Ray” just sit in a corner having a good pull.

    You’re boring me, so forgive me if I don’t engage in your tax-payer funded swill any further…

  50. Let me count the ways..

    Well there is actaully like the case of a father who has had his name removed from the birth certificate of his child in favour of the mother’s lesbian partner in NSW I believe.

    You are actually talking complete and utter cr*p. BDMs registers in all States have a space for ‘father’s name’. Once a child’s birth is registered under BDMs the registration cannot be altered.

    You’re a bit slow Iain, civil unions aka defacto relationships irrespective of gender have been recognised since 1999.

    Ok, in point form..why are you arguing against marriage equality.

  51. Iain, if you like a good argument, I assume you mean debate.

    If that is the case, how can you achieve that by name calling and insulting those who disagree with you.

    I see that as a sign of extreme arrogance.

    I would be very careful in using decisions made in the Children’s or Family Court.

    Mostly things are not as they seem. There is generally much more to the evidence that linked to the decisions.

    I also love a good argument, but I always try to respect the views of others.

    There are many different views, and often there is not only one right answer.

    All one does by calling names and insults, is to devalue your own argument and turn people off.

    It is about an interchange of views.

  52. Listening to the news, they are showing PM in full flight.

    The protest mob left a nasty in the mouth. I would expect better from my own age group.

    As for Mr. Abbott, he look a little out of it.

  53. Iain, now this an entirely different issue..you are not talking about ‘a father’ you are talking about a sperm donor. Sorry guys just because you donated sperm does not not make you a father.

  54. Oh Iain do fuck off. Your feeble attempts at adopting the “Andrew Bolt I’m the victim here” bleats, are just that….

    Except that you’re not quite as polished as Bolt at doing it.

  55. I think we could all do with a drink. I wouldn’t mind a Baileys.

    Bring me the bottle.

    And some ice.

    And a large glass.

    You have your orders.

  56. Thank you darlin’ a Bailey’s would be very nice and you had better send out for reinforcements because I suspect that Pip, CU, Sue and Jane wouldn’t mind one as well.

  57. Pip…how come you turn up right on cue whenever a Bundy and now a Bailey’s is mentioned. This is across a couple of threads..you’re amazing!!

  58. “Bolt..polished ???….faux polish, please !”

    Simply hilighting that “Iain” is a Bolt wannabe..

    Both are full of shit…

    Iain thinks he’s a player, but he’s just an unemployed rural redneck hick wannabe…

  59. Min
    you are wrong the man fathered the child on the clear understanding that the child would know who he was.
    Reb
    Thank you for being such a wonderful example of the caring and tolerant left.
    (sarcasm)

  60. I’ve raided it Migs. You lot will just have to make do with Taylor’s Promised Land.

    Iain will just have to make do with whatver our taxpayer funded Centrelink entitlements afford him.

    Not that tha I bergudge that.

    I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor.

    The former is better, the latter is something that Iain will have to contend with for the rest of his unabashed Centrelink bludging ways..

    FOREVER.

    Did I mention that I’m off to Paris in a few weeks..?

    That’s “an overseas place” Iain…. 😉

  61. Migs, I believe that you having entrusted me with the key to the cellar that Bacchus then asked me if he could borrow it…but that’s some time ago around about May and we haven’t sighted Bacchus since… We’ll we’ve sighted Bacchus, but not the key.

  62. Reb, strangely I’ve been likewise rich and I’ve been poor and some of the best times in my life have been when I’ve been poor. I would rather a Bailey’s with a good and true friend than fluffying around with a wanker.

  63. (You people really should be more tolerant of the affable and the polite right; especially when they’re peddling stories about why all people shouldn’t have the opportunity to get married and/or found a family because there are very real concerns that unmarried lesbians might purloin another handsome wanker’s de facto daughter-wife.)

  64. No, reb, I don’t recall you mentioning you’re off to Paris.

    It really is the holiday destination flor bloggers these days, with Tony and I there last month as well as bloggers past in Joni and Jedda.

    I’d like to come with you but I have a grueling work schedule ahead of me.

  65. Migs, yes a close friend of mine is an Antiques dealer and travels the Continent..in fact B* is in Egypt at the moment..a bit of a disappointment, the pieces he was expecting to pick up were very low class. He ended up having to kill time in a Casino, poor bloke!! Yuk!!

  66. Bacchus will probably roll up now.

    Nah – Bacchus (& Mrs Bacchus) is gazing out over a (near?) full moon over the mouth of the Noosa RIver slowly savouring a glass of Penfolds Bin 128. I have absolutely no interest in frequenting the cafe while that red-neck piece of &*^$% is holding court thanks…

  67. Not your fault Min – The likes of Iain Hall are no-one’s fault but their own (and maybe it’s parents). The only cure for such a malady is postnatal abortion!

  68. At least now you are more conscious of your carbon footprint. I know I will be paying through the nose and won’t get to fly, thanx for nuthin.

    .

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s