This post is based on an email that was sent and in no way reflects the views and opinions of ''Met'' or To send in a story send your email to [email protected]




This is from me to this man dung yasso :Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought down when I punish them,” says the LORD. Jermiah 6 vs 15

Maurice Tomlinson

about an hour ago
I refuse to make ANY woman’s life miserable JUST to please my family. Instead, I live authentically.
24 people like this.

Namela Baynes-Rowe Mauh that’s why I love so …u the real deal…big hug!
about an hour ago · 2

Cunningham Linford agreeements
about an hour ago · 2

Tracy Tomlinson To thyself be true!!
45 minutes ago

Helena Krasocka The other side of the coin is how low any woman’s self-esteem would need to be to ~want~ to be with a man who was only pretending, not at love because that can be chaste, but at really, honestly desiring her? Why would any woman choose a ghost of a lover unless she didn’t consider herself worthy? I just don’t understand such desperation.
37 minutes ago

Jeff Ogwaro Feni Maurice….on the spot!!
28 minutes ago

Matthew Thomas That is right!!!
13 minutes ago via mobile

19 Responses to THE GREAT LIE

  • Observer says:

    rephrased: I refuse to make any woman’s life miserable ANYMORE just to please my family so I live authentically. :nohope:

  • Belly Bang says:

    OBSERVER, this man yah is one ah di biggest asshole fi ever drop outta Montego Bay………………. :kts:

    BTW, MOOOOOBAYYYYYYYYYY, ah one ah fi unno own suh nuh badda gwaan like unno nuh know him!!! :army:

  • Observer says:

    otayyyy belly i c i c suh belly em use to be a dancer?

  • Belly Bang says:

    OBSERVERR…………………………………. READ …………dance pon man buddy must be, him did marry out here to a female, a child born, him guh study law due to alot of her financial support & scarifice, him tun lawyer, stil ah tek man b4 and during the marriage, when him tun lawyer divource pap & him did ah demand 1/2 ah everyting, him tek up the gay crusade out yah, deh pon march & protest and all, lecture uppa UTECH, guh Canada guh marry pastor man, newspaper out yah buss the news bout the marriage, him claim it mek him have to ‘flee’ Jamaica, though him still come back yah, tun big big bigger gay crusader now & ah provoke people to challenge Jamaica’s buggery laws…………………………… that sums it up

  • Observer says:

    omg fi real wow suh afta em get em “satisfaction” em wah cum clean n em still nuh mention it word fi word wikkid dog shit i tink i c em pic pon shebada page (2 pastor man married eachother) :hoax2

  • Belly Bang says:

    fi years mi ah tawk bout him in yah, ah mi fren him di married to and mi cut up over it, and when him and she part ways, ok, is batty business mek it couldnt work, but then him nuh kip him rass quiet, bearing in mind him have a child and ting (this might sound wicked but mi always hope to hear one day that the child aint his). That child was living in Jamaica. NOOOOO!!! him deh pon tv and inna newspaper ah write bout battyman rights and ah loud up di tings dem. He was a well known battyman so when him guh married again to the white man this time, and the newspaper buss the news, and him chat dat is the newspaper mek him haffi run leave ‘homophobic’ Jamaica, he is a liar and ah wicked f—…..

  • Observer says:

    oh wow sorry fi yuh fren she muss feel it poor ting n di child has this to look forward to…smh

  • Tawkchuet says:

    Hey one thing I notice with these gay men there don’t dem luv spot light now u have a child y bring that kinda drama into his life gwaan go stab shit n advocate quietly y u have to be the face of battyman. N how gay can he be him is opportunisexual meaning him f— anyway him see a good opportunity

  • Met says:

    chuet a di devil ina dem u tink di devil business wid anyone but himself?

  • Tawkchuet says:

    Met the devil loose fi real cause I saw a video on YouTube tears come a mi eye di likkle girl having sex with the little boy no older than 5yrs old mi say mi blood got cold when I saw the things she did to this child smh.

  • Met says:

    spiritual wickedness spilling rite over chuet

  • LadyWoW says:

    He is going to helllll he mash up di covenant of marrige , abandon his child fi go inna him world of lust. dats wickedness

    chute mawninnn

  • Tawkchuet says:

    Wow mawning dear the batty parasite dem sick mi bad

  • Observer says:

    spiritual wikkidniss fi chu caw all em mi cudda guh sitdung n seh mi a lissen to em preach yuh mussi maddd

  • Met says:

    zervah das y mi did haffi drop a bible verse pan him man

  • MURASAKI says:

    a pastor battyman, the terms terms dont even mesh together. belly whey really boil mi anger an mi not even know yuh fren is how dis damn man guh breed her , tek her money and support and then declare seh suddenly him not into pums…it boil mi temper…..

  • Observer says:

    met it dread outta yah btw when are we gonna do that again “giving up something to get something from 6-whenever?

  • Anonymous says:

    SHAME SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what a shame!!!!!!

    Questions for Maurice Tomlinson
    Published: Thursday | February 2, 2012 10 Comments

    THE EDITOR, Sir:

    IN YOUR editorial on Tuesday, you made mention of the fact that as law students, those who Maurice Tomlinson teach should take into consideration Section 13 (3)(a) of the Charter of Rights in Jamaica’s Constitution which speaks about the right to life. As a member of the Lesbian Bisexual Gay and Transgender community, I know all to well the negativity, such as threats and physical attacks, that we as lesbians and gays have to go through at times. I can also relate to what the students are going through, especially those who have to work while attending school. I might get a backlash from the community for what I’m about to say, but who gives a damn?

    Mr Tomlinson, being a well-known activist, is fully aware of the dangers members of the community face, and as a well-thinking adult, he could have gone about things differently. There’s no way his marriage could have remained a secret with him being a well-known activist, and more recently, with him receiving the David Cato award. Mr Tomlinson should have foreseen the current events. It’s no business of mine what goes on in Mr Tomlinson’s personal life, but he needs to answer a few questions.

    1. Why didn’t you put a plan in place for your students in the event of incidents like this?

    2. Why couldn’t you have ended the semester and then take care of your personal life (your wedding)?

    3. I’m sure you are capable of using our current technology. Why didn’t you plan webinars and make use of various related tools for your students?

    It was very rude of Mr Tomlinson to just tell his students to sit in with other lecturer(s). I’d be very upset too.

    Concerned Gay
    retrieved from on 2/19/2013


    Maurice Tomlinson, in his article ‘Tragic case of ignorance’ (Gleaner, December 11, 2012), said: “In 1994, the UN Human Rights Committee found that a law similar to Jamaica’s which criminalised the right of consenting adults to engage in their private acts of intimacy was a violation of the rights to privacy, as well as protection from cruel and inhuman treatment, and the right to equality before the law. By maintaining the anti-buggery law, Jamaica is, therefore, in violation of its human-rights obligations … .”

    It is quite likely that Mr Tomlinson was referring to the Tasmanian case involving Nicholas Toonen, an Australian citizen living in the state of Tasmania. The committee did rule, inter alia, that the Tasmanian law was in breach of the right to privacy under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    What is of concern, however, is that Mr Tomlinson has made a mammoth jump from referring to this decision to the conclusion that “Jamaica is, therefore, in violation of its human-rights obligations”. It is the accuracy of this conclusion which I seek to challenge.

    However, being conscious of my place, as being neither a human-rights lecturer nor the daughter of one, I have decided to quote extensively from an article which was written by Professor Steven Vasciannie and published in The Gleaner on May 22, 2006. (Professor Vasciannie is now ambassador to the United States).

    This is what Professor Vasciannie had to say then in response to the same or, at the very least, a similar argument which was being made by a Human Rights Watch representative:

    I take it, therefore, that the Human Rights Watch representative was arguing that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognises the right to privacy, and the Human Rights Committee has said that homosexual rights are part of the right to privacy: therefore, Jamaica is in breach of the Covenant, and in breach of international law.

    Flawed arguments

    This is misleading advocacy. First, the United Nations Human Rights Committee is not a court of law. When it considers cases, it makes recommendations to countries; these recommendations are not binding in the way that the decision of a court is binding in law. In fact, for cases including the Toonen case, the Human Rights Committee is mandated only to “put forward its views to the state party concerned and to the individual” (First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, Article 5(4)). Putting forward views is hardly the language of binding commitment.

    States – including Jamaica – have never accepted that views put forward by the Human Rights Committee amount to law. So, the Human Rights Watch representative is simply wrong when she implies that the Toonen case creates a binding obligation on Jamaica in international law.

    Second, if we assume – incorrectly – that the Human Rights Committee could actually make law, the approach taken in the Toonen case would still be vulnerable as a statement of the law. In summary form, international law is identified by reference to treaties, custom and general principles of law recognised by ‘civilised’ nations. There is no treaty that expressly states that homosexual sex must be regarded as lawful.

    Custom, as evidenced by the general practice of countries, does not support the right to this activity: for countries leave each other to determine what their local laws will be on the subject. And, there has never been a general principle accepted by countries as applicable to the issue.

    Thus, the application of orthodox principles of international law suggests that the Human Rights Committee could not have reasonably reached the conclusion that there is an international law right to homosexual activity.

    Finally, I think that the Human Rights Watch representative has confused herself by mixing up what she wants international law to say with what international law actually says. No treaty requires Jamaica to recognise homosexual sex as lawful. She wants a different conclusion, so she relies on the recommendation of the Human Rights Committee, as if recommendations are binding law. They are not.

    To the best of my knowledge, the principles of international law enunciated by Professor Vasciannie in 2006 are still the same in 2012. So whether or not Mr Tomlinson was referring to the Toonen decision, it seems clear, based on Professor Vasciannie’s article, that by maintaining its anti-buggery law, Jamaica is not in violation of either human rights or international law obligations.

    Shirley Richards is an attorney-at-law and member of Lawyers Christian Fellowship. Email feedback to [email protected] and [email protected].


    retrieved from on 2/19/2013

  • Kwow says:

    So i took the liberty and searched through this man fb page . There is a sad history hidden and maybe the ex wife knows it or someone in the family . A few of the Tomlinson men are also gay , hey maybe they were raped by a cousin or uncle , I just wish someone would confirm . Take a look at maurice fb page and check out his friends list of all Tomlinsons , then you kind of get the pix. Even his poor mom looks weary , you can see it on her face , she must have had it rough raising this son who was probably sexually abused . Hey you never know but it just seems interesting .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

[+] kaskus emoticons nartzco

Current day month [email protected] *

DISCLAIMER The views or opinions appearing on this blog are solely those of their respective authors. In no way do such posts represent the views, opinions or beliefs of “Met,” or “Met” and will not assume liability for the opinions or statements, nor the accuracy of such statements, posted by users utilizing this blog to express themselves. Users are advised that false statements which are defamatory in nature may be subject to legal action, for which the user posting such statements will be personally liable for any damages or other liability, of any nature, arising out of the posting of such statements. Comments submitted to this blog may be edited to meet our format and space requirements. We also reserve the right to edit vulgar language and/or comments involving topics we may deem inappropriate for this web site.

****RULES**** 1. Debates and rebuttals are allowed but disrespectful curse-outs will prompt immediate BAN 2. Children are never to be discussed in a negative way 3. Personal information  eg. workplace, status, home address are never to be posted in comments. 4. All are welcome but please exercise discretion when posting your comments , do not say anything about someone you wouldnt like to be said about  you. 5. Do not deliberately LIE on someone here or send in any information based on your own personal vendetta. 6. If your picture was taken from a prio site eg. fimiyaad etc and posted on JMG, you cannot request its removal. 7. If you dont like this forum, please do not whine and wear us out, do yourself the favor of closing the screen- Thanks! . To send in a story send your email to :- [email protected]