[Twosugars]

Ann doesn't seem to be fond of scientific evidence either

She has expressed a variety of views on scientific issues such as climate change but has been opposed to legislation reducing emissions. Her views on the subject appear to have hardened over time. In 2007, she wrote that she did not want to belittle the issue but was sceptical of the claims that specific actions would prevent catastrophe,[18] then in 2008 that her doubts had been "crystalised" by Nigel Lawson's book An Appeal to Reason,[19] before stating in 2009 that "There is no climate change, hasn’t anybody looked out of their window recently?"[20] She was one of the five MPs who voted against the Climate Change Act 2008.[21] In 2011 she expressed the view that "climate change money should go to armed services".[22] The previous year, she voted to support a parliamentary motion supporting homeopathy, criticising the Science and Technology Committee's Report on the subject

Wikipedia

[Jase.]

Originally Posted by Yaki da

You've heard very little in your life if a comment like that is shocking to you.

Shocking? Nah. Preposterous? Absolutely.

[Marches]

A lot of these votes are pretty bad but Ann has been a fantastic housemate (far better than the rest of them really) and people like Amanda and such have shown that you can find common ground and enjoy a person despite conflicting political opinion

[bitontheslide]

I have always thought the majority of Ann's views sucked all the way back to when she was voting, but that's not what being a hm on big brother is about, at least not for me anyway. I look to be entertained. As India put it herself in the house, it's not panarama, so why should it be viewed like panarama outside the house either?

I haven't seen the show in the last week, but the shows I watched, I found her consistently entertaining, and inoffensive ... I couldn't really ask for more

[montblanc]

horrible woman.

[parmnion]

I probably would have voted the same apart from the last one.

[Twosugars]

Well, I suppose that's where we differ. I can't put aside what a HM stands for. It's too big a part of them, I mean, their views and past actions.
If you take the logic of just judging them as they are in the house then even a serial killer might be charming to be around for a few weeks. I'm taking this argument ad absurdum, of course. I'm not comparing Ann, a dogmatic right-wing former politician with intimacy issues to a dangerous killer.

I agree with everyone's efforts in there to bring a human side of Ann out. Whatever you think of individual HMs, they all tried to engage her in a positive way. I'm sure it will do her a lot of good and maybe in time, lead to her changing some of her preconceptions.
But I don't agree with ignoring or brushing aside her core beliefs because it's inconvenient to challenge them (like Amanda or Wayne or all others, except ShaneJ or Andrew, do). It compromises their integrity and looks false.

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Well, I suppose that's where we differ. I can't put aside what a HM stands for. It's too big a part of them, I mean, their views and past actions.
If you take the logic of just judging them as they are in the house then even a serial killer might be charming to be around for a few weeks. I'm taking this argument ad absurdum, of course. I'm not comparing Ann, a dogmatic right-wing former politician with intimacy issues to a dangerous killer.

I agree with everyone's efforts in there to bring a human side of Ann out. Whatever you think of individual HMs, they all tried to engage her in a positive way. I'm sure it will do her a lot of good and maybe in time, lead to her changing some of her preconceptions.
But I don't agree with ignoring or brushing aside her core beliefs because it's inconvenient to challenge them (like Amanda or Wayne or all others, except ShaneJ or Andrew, do). It compromises their integrity and looks false.

this!

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Well, I suppose that's where we differ. I can't put aside what a HM stands for. It's too big a part of them, I mean, their views and past actions.
If you take the logic of just judging them as they are in the house then even a serial killer might be charming to be around for a few weeks. I'm taking this argument ad absurdum, of course. I'm not comparing Ann, a dogmatic right-wing former politician with intimacy issues to a dangerous killer.

I agree with everyone's efforts in there to bring a human side of Ann out. Whatever you think of individual HMs, they all tried to engage her in a positive way. I'm sure it will do her a lot of good and maybe in time, lead to her changing some of her preconceptions.
But I don't agree with ignoring or brushing aside her core beliefs because it's inconvenient to challenge them (like Amanda or Wayne or all others, except ShaneJ or Andrew, do). It compromises their integrity and looks false.

Don't be silly it does nothing of the sort, have all the HMs been interogated on their political or religious views, no they haven't, Amanda and Wayne did not research Ann before they went into the house because they went in to get a fee and perhaps have the experience, Shane J researched her, not sure if he researched anyone else but I think its a first for CBB for someone to own up that they had researched someone before going into the house instead of going in with an open mind

[Marches]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Well, I suppose that's where we differ. I can't put aside what a HM stands for. It's too big a part of them, I mean, their views and past actions.
If you take the logic of just judging them as they are in the house then even a serial killer might be charming to be around for a few weeks. I'm taking this argument ad absurdum, of course. I'm not comparing Ann, a dogmatic right-wing former politician with intimacy issues to a dangerous killer.

I agree with everyone's efforts in there to bring a human side of Ann out. Whatever you think of individual HMs, they all tried to engage her in a positive way. I'm sure it will do her a lot of good and maybe in time, lead to her changing some of her preconceptions.
But I don't agree with ignoring or brushing aside her core beliefs because it's inconvenient to challenge them (like Amanda or Wayne or all others, except ShaneJ or Andrew, do). It compromises their integrity and looks false.

It’s not about inconvenience, Amanda gets she isn’t going to change Ann’s views on stuff so she just accepts and loves her as a person

Shane j isn’t bothered bout changing her views he just wants to push a, imo malicious, narrative. I wouldn’t like Ann if she forced her views down people’s throats, but she doesn’t so I can put them aside and appreciate her as a person

[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Well, I suppose that's where we differ. I can't put aside what a HM stands for. It's too big a part of them, I mean, their views and past actions.
If you take the logic of just judging them as they are in the house then even a serial killer might be charming to be around for a few weeks. I'm taking this argument ad absurdum, of course. I'm not comparing Ann, a dogmatic right-wing former politician with intimacy issues to a dangerous killer.

I agree with everyone's efforts in there to bring a human side of Ann out. Whatever you think of individual HMs, they all tried to engage her in a positive way. I'm sure it will do her a lot of good and maybe in time, lead to her changing some of her preconceptions.
But I don't agree with ignoring or brushing aside her core beliefs because it's inconvenient to challenge them (like Amanda or Wayne or all others, except ShaneJ or Andrew, do). It compromises their integrity and looks false.

Ann is no serial killer, this exaggeration is a step too far.

Her core beliefs are hurting no one at the moment because she has retired and her views are now ineffective.

These views will die out in time when the older generation meets their maker and fingers crossed the next generation can move forwards without the hate and vitriol shown on here by her detractors.

There is nothing anyone can do to change her, she is content within her skin. I do not think with all the pontificating in the world has made Shane J happy with his.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

Ann is no serial killer, this exaggeration is a step too far.

Can you understand English?
I wrote:

I'm not comparing Ann, a dogmatic right-wing former politician with intimacy issues to a dangerous killer.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Cherie

[/B]

Don't be silly it does nothing of the sort, have all the HMs been interogated on their political or religious views, no they haven't, Amanda and Wayne did not research Ann before they went into the house

I'd imagine he researched everybody as he is from abroad.

You think Amanda or Wayne lived under a rock all their lives? Ann has been a prominent public figure for decades.

[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Can you understand English?
I wrote:

In your first paragraph, it was a comparison.

The fact you negated it later did not remove why you compared them in the first place, the inference had been made.

No personal comments please

[Robertocarlo]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Well, I suppose that's where we differ. I can't put aside what a HM stands for. It's too big a part of them, I mean, their views and past actions.
If you take the logic of just judging them as they are in the house then even a serial killer might be charming to be around for a few weeks. I'm taking this argument ad absurdum, of course. I'm not comparing Ann, a dogmatic right-wing former politician with intimacy issues to a dangerous killer.

I agree with everyone's efforts in there to bring a human side of Ann out. Whatever you think of individual HMs, they all tried to engage her in a positive way. I'm sure it will do her a lot of good and maybe in time, lead to her changing some of her preconceptions.
But I don't agree with ignoring or brushing aside her core beliefs because it's inconvenient to challenge them (like Amanda or Wayne or all others, except ShaneJ or Andrew, do). It compromises their integrity and looks false.

Absolutely spot on. I cannot look the other way just because she's entertaining, which she is tbh, but on her terms it seems. Shame that BB put her in seeing it's the Year of The Woman and she's hardly stood up for woman's rights now has she?

[Jamie89]

Did any one else read that list in Marcus' voice as her launch night entrance facts

Originally Posted by Riley.

It’s her religion and that’s what her religion believes. All religions truly don’t agree with homosexuality but that wouldn’t stop you befriending a Christian, Muslim or Jew would it?

She converted to Catholicism quite late in life I think... because it was more in line with her views.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

I'd imagine he researched everybody as he is from abroad.

You think Amanda or Wayne lived under a rock all their lives? Ann has been a prominent public figure for decades.

Do you think Malika or G researched anyone, they are from abroad too, he is just a little too desperate, and it goes against the whole premise of the show, with regard to Amanda and Wayne, could you tell me everything they did in their lifetime as you seem to expect them to know every detail of Ann Ws, I would hazard a guess nobody on here knew much about her voting record either as there wasn't a peep about it during her time in Strictly

[Twosugars]

Tbh, since when researching before you go on a long tv programme where you're forced to live with strangers is something to be ashamed of?
Wouldn't you if you could?
I think most of them do, Shane mentioned it as a matter of course.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

In your first paragraph, it was a comparison.

The fact you negated it later did not remove why you compared them in the first place, the inference had been made.

No personal comments please

No, it wasn't. I'm not going to discuss rhetorical devices with you here.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Tbh, since when researching before you go on a long tv programme where you're forced to live with strangers is something to be ashamed of?
Wouldn't you if you could?
I think most of them do, Shane mentioned it as a matter of course.

I never said it was something to be ashamed of, it shows a level of pre planning on his part, rather than using the time in the house to learn about his fellow HMs with no preconceptions, what else do they have to do in there all day every day, and anyway they are allegedly not meant to know who is going in with them apart from those rumoured,

[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

No, it wasn't. I'm not going to discuss rhetorical devices with you here.

That's OK, I understand why you wouldn't

[Withano]

That is an awful track record.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I never said it was something to be ashamed of, it shows a level of pre planning on his part, rather than using the time in the house to learn about his fellow HMs with no preconceptions, what else do they have to do in there all day every day, and anyway they are allegedly not meant to know who is going in with them apart from those rumoured,

I see your point.
I suppose it takes all sorts, some people want to know as much as they can to prepare themselves, others prefer to go with the flow.
Don't they say that roughly we fall into two personality types, organized and spontaneous, a and b, or something like that? Maybe that's where it comes from

My point was that to me it seems natural to get all info you can. For example, I can never understand whenever a HM says that they never even watched the programme.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Withano

That is an awful track record.

Not so drastic as painted though.....18yrs voted what could be described as 4 times against gay rights......

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

That's OK, I understand why you wouldn't

good we have some understanding. Let's agree not to probe each other's knowledge coz it may get embarrassing.

let's be adults and discuss issues and not get personal