Why is Ann clearly getting away with being Homophobic!!

[sim21]

After Ann's comments tonight and several other times ie two men rolling around on the floor being disgusting, how is she so popular and seems to be getting away with being clearly HOMOPHOBIC!!!!

[poppsywoppsy]

She just doesn't like PDAs with either gays or straights.

[Denver]

Why do gays feel that everyone should be getting a sweat on about the fact 2 guys try to shag each other

[Ant.]

To be fair, Shandrew has made me homophobic

[Kazanne]

She just doesn't like PDAs with either gays or straights.

Oh not this old chestnut AGAIN :joker::joker:

[Cherie]

To be fair, Shandrew has made me homophobic

:joker:

[Denver]

Gays should be more pissed out with the fact Andrew is abusing his trust in someone gay for extra fame

[smudgie]

She would have said exactly the same had it been Ginuwine and Ashley.
More prudish than homophobic.

[Natawho]

I don't think she's homophobic...

She's against gay marriage but her reasons are to do with the definition of marriage and she's said SEVERAL times that what people do in their own private space is their business.

She's cringed at STRAIGHT affection in the house.

She's cringed at GAY affection in the house.

Stop throwing the word 'homophobe' around because you make the whole community look like snowflake brats. We aren't all born with a pole up our arse like you.

Ann is just a woman with views. She doesn't try to impose them on anyone else.

Now find something genuine to complain about.

[Kazanne]

After Ann's comments tonight and several other times ie two men rolling around on the floor being disgusting, how is she so popular and seems to be getting away with being clearly HOMOPHOBIC!!!!

She is not homophobic.

[Cherie]

After Ann's comments tonight and several other times ie two men rolling around on the floor being disgusting, how is she so popular and seems to be getting away with being clearly HOMOPHOBIC!!!!

Andrew is straight she must be at least 50 per cent heterophobic

[Natawho]

She would have said exactly the same had it been Ginuwine and Ashley.
More prudish than homophobic.

^^

She's a prude, nothing to do with sexuality

[Kazanne]

I don't think she's homophobic...

She's against gay marriage but her reasons are to do with the definition of marriage and she's said SEVERAL times that what people do in their own private space is their business.

She's cringed at STRAIGHT affection in the house.

She's cringed at GAY affection in the house.

Stop throwing the word 'homophobe' around because you make the whole community look like snowflake brats. We aren't all born with a pole up our arse like you.

Ann is just a woman with views. She doesn't try to impose them on anyone else.

Now find something genuine to complain about.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:Brilliant

[Oaker]

I mean people get away with stuff like this all the time on BB. Remember when Katie Hopkins became the viewers favourite? :bored:

[Natawho]

Gays should be more pissed out with the fact Andrew is abusing his trust in someone gay for extra fame

The majority of us are. Most people calling Ann homophobic aren't even LGBT, because we know real homophobia and Ann doesn't show a grain of it.

[Ant.]

Gays should be more pissed out with the fact Andrew is abusing his trust in someone gay for extra fame

This tbh

I think the real hurt in the house is Andrew stringing along a gay guy, Shane J (nor Amanda or Wayne, lgbt+ housemates) has never had an issue with Ann's views

[Alf]

Are you saying gays are snowflakes?

[Cherie]

This tbh

I think the real hurt in the house is Andrew stringing along a gay guy, Shane J (nor Amanda or Wayne, lgbt+ housemates) has never had an issue with Ann's views

:clap1:

[joeysteele]

It's a good thing BB never have housemates playing Twister if she thinks that lewd behavior.
Yes she demonstrated her homophobia tonight,her nom was daft.

Yet she rightly earlier in the series pulled Malika up for a daft nom.

[poppsywoppsy]

I don't think she's homophobic...

She's against gay marriage but her reasons are to do with the definition of marriage and she's said SEVERAL times that what people do in their own private space is their business.

She's cringed at STRAIGHT affection in the house.

She's cringed at GAY affection in the house.

Stop throwing the word 'homophobe' around because you make the whole community look like snowflake brats. We aren't all born with a pole up our arse like you.

Ann is just a woman with views. She doesn't try to impose them on anyone else.

Now find something genuine to complain about.




The voice of reason:nono::nono:

[Natawho]

This tbh

I think the real hurt in the house is Andrew stringing along a gay guy, Shane J (nor Amanda or Wayne, lgbt+ housemates) has never had an issue with Ann's views

Absolutely! Amanda's nomination of Shane tonight summed it up perfectly.

[jaxie]

I remember my nan taking issue over the length of my skirt and telling me it was disgusting! I just pulled it down a bit and let her have her rant about my mother letting me leave the house dressed like that. My nan was a different generation and she had a very hard life, was widowed very young.

Ann is just older and a bit of a prude. I think all the homophobia threads are a bit hysterical.

[sim21]

Well i am a gay man, and feel the Ann's is quite clearly Homophobic and anyone following how she has vote of the years in the commons on subjects like Clause 28 will know!

[Denver]

Well i am a gay man, and feel the Ann's is quite clearly Homophobic and anyone following how she has vote of the years in the commons on subjects like Clause 28 will know!

Oh im sorry i forgot you speak for every member of the LGBT community on the planet

[jaxie]

Well i am a gay man, and feel the Ann's is quite clearly Homophobic and anyone following how she has vote of the years in the commons on subjects like Clause 28 will know!

Maybe you've just lived a sheltered life? :shrug: I am pretty certain there are people much more hateful than Ann.

[joeysteele]

Well i am a gay man, and feel the Ann's is quite clearly Homophobic and anyone following how she has vote of the years in the commons on subjects like Clause 28 will know!

That's sadly true.
Had Ann had her way lgbt rights would never have improved.

[chuff me dizzy]

She just doesn't like PDAs with either gays or straights.

Exactly and theres no law that says she has to lie it either

[Tom4784]

Maybe you've just lived a sheltered life? :shrug: I am pretty certain there are people much more hateful than Ann.

There's always someone worse in every aspect of life but that doesn't exempt someone from being a homophobe just because their hatred isn't as bad as the worst possible example.

[lewis111]

We haven't exactly got the most lovable and exciting bunch of HMs in there just now so sometimes you are able to overlook someone's views if they are a good enough HM and also don't make a big deal about their views in the house

Ann's biggest issue has been bad language and people being crude - the only time she's ever brought up like woman's rights or LGBT issues is when they were asked if her and her to explain, and at the time she got a lot of hate and criticism for it
But people like Andrew constantly hating on her whilst she's talking good of him make her seem like a better person / and to people like I say, don't hate, educate

[sim21]

Never said i speaking for everyone , i clearly said i feel she is Homophobic. I am not saying i dislike her but feel she is being let off for her comments because of her age.

[jaxie]

There's always someone worse in every aspect of life but that doesn't exempt someone from being a homophobe just because their hatred isn't as bad as the worst possible example.

I think its pretty clear from watching Ann that she isn't homophobic. The issue she has with LGBT rights are about her religious beliefs but I don't see anyone calling the pope a homophobe. :shrug:

[lewis111]

I Do agree that she is homophobic but if she provides good TV then I'll want her to stay in - am I going to vote for her or want her to win? No but the show would die without her

Cardi B defended her homophobic man, does that mean I'm gonna stop listening to Bodak Yellow everyday? No!

[Natawho]

Well i am a gay man, and feel the Ann's is quite clearly Homophobic and anyone following how she has vote of the years in the commons on subjects like Clause 28 will know!

Gay man here. Read up on her voting history before she went in. She never heavily campaigned against anything LGBT so I never put it down to anything but a generational educational gap.

Nothing in Ann screams hatred towards LGBT, she has calm and collected talks with Shane J in the house about these issues, something that a real homophobe would never do.

As someone who's dealt with real homophobia, I worry that your sheltered voice of 'anyone who disagrees with us is a homophobe and should have no friends' is a lot more harmful than a 70 year old lady that has never raised her voice once in the house.

You can't just assume that because we have more rights and representation now, that everyone has to fall in line. People are allowed to disagree with homosexuality in the same way that people are allowed to disagree with pineapple on pizza.

Ann lived the majority of her life in a world that oppressed gay people, in a world where LGBT had no rights. It's only natural that the change we've seen over the past few decades is going to come across as strange to somebody like that.

Instead of labelling people as 'hateful' and 'homophobic' and scaring people off voicing their opinions, focus on educating people who are living in the past.

It makes a mockery of ANY community when that community starts disregarding every single person that disagrees with them.

Do you think we got to where we are today by screaming 'HOMOPHOBE' at everyone who cringes at two guys making out?

No, we got to where we are today through debates, through the votes that Ann took part in, through discussion and most importantly through education.

Let the old lady eat her biccies in peace.

:nono:

[Kazanne]

Never said i speaking for everyone , i clearly said i feel she is Homophobic. I am not saying i dislike her but feel she is being let off for her comments because of her age.

No,IF she was saying anything wrong BB would warn her and they haven't so people need to chill, She doesn't like swearing,sexual talk and Pda,s her choice but not hateful as Andrew is.

[poppsywoppsy]

Gay man here. Read up on her voting history before she went in. She never heavily campaigned against anything LGBT so I never put it down to anything but a generational educational gap.

Nothing in Ann screams hatred towards LGBT, she has calm and collected talks with Shane J in the house about these issues, something that a real homophobe would never do.

As someone who's dealt with real homophobia, I worry that your sheltered voice of 'anyone who disagrees with us is a homophobe and should have no friends' is a lot more harmful than a 70 year old lady that has never raised her voice once in the house.

You can't just assume that because we have more rights and representation now, that everyone has to fall in line. People are allowed to disagree with homosexuality in the same way that people are allowed to disagree with pineapple on pizza.

Ann lived the majority of her life in a world that oppressed gay people, in a world where LGBT had no rights. It's only natural that the change we've seen over the past few decades is going to come across as strange to somebody like that.

Instead of labelling people as 'hateful' and 'homophobic' and scaring people off voicing their opinions, focus on educating people who are living in the past.

It makes a mockery of ANY community when that community starts disregarding every single person that disagrees with them.

Do you think we got to where we are today by screaming 'HOMOPHOBE' at everyone who cringes at two guys making out?

No, we got to where we are today through debates, through the votes that Ann took part in, through discussion and most importantly through education.

Let the old lady eat her biccies in peace.

:nono:


Hurray for common sense, enlightenment and intelligence.

[Kazanne]

Gay man here. Read up on her voting history before she went in. She never heavily campaigned against anything LGBT so I never put it down to anything but a generational educational gap.

Nothing in Ann screams hatred towards LGBT, she has calm and collected talks with Shane J in the house about these issues, something that a real homophobe would never do.

As someone who's dealt with real homophobia, I worry that your sheltered voice of 'anyone who disagrees with us is a homophobe and should have no friends' is a lot more harmful than a 70 year old lady that has never raised her voice once in the house.

You can't just assume that because we have more rights and representation now, that everyone has to fall in line. People are allowed to disagree with homosexuality in the same way that people are allowed to disagree with pineapple on pizza.

Ann lived the majority of her life in a world that oppressed gay people, in a world where LGBT had no rights. It's only natural that the change we've seen over the past few decades is going to come across as strange to somebody like that.

Instead of labelling people as 'hateful' and 'homophobic' and scaring people off voicing their opinions, focus on educating people who are living in the past.

It makes a mockery of ANY community when that community starts disregarding every single person that disagrees with them.

Do you think we got to where we are today by screaming 'HOMOPHOBE' at everyone who cringes at two guys making out?

No, we got to where we are today through debates, through the votes that Ann took part in, through discussion and most importantly through education.

Let the old lady eat her biccies in peace.

:nono:

Great Post :worship::worship:

[rusticgal]

I don't think she's homophobic...

She's against gay marriage but her reasons are to do with the definition of marriage and she's said SEVERAL times that what people do in their own private space is their business.

She's cringed at STRAIGHT affection in the house.

She's cringed at GAY affection in the house.

Stop throwing the word 'homophobe' around because you make the whole community look like snowflake brats. We aren't all born with a pole up our arse like you.

Ann is just a woman with views. She doesn't try to impose them on anyone else.

Now find something genuine to complain about.

Well said. Ann is stuck in a time warp like many people of her age. However she expresses her opinion but the fact that she says what people do in private is up to them. I admire her honesty.

[jaxie]

Gay man here. Read up on her voting history before she went in. She never heavily campaigned against anything LGBT so I never put it down to anything but a generational educational gap.

Nothing in Ann screams hatred towards LGBT, she has calm and collected talks with Shane J in the house about these issues, something that a real homophobe would never do.

As someone who's dealt with real homophobia, I worry that your sheltered voice of 'anyone who disagrees with us is a homophobe and should have no friends' is a lot more harmful than a 70 year old lady that has never raised her voice once in the house.

You can't just assume that because we have more rights and representation now, that everyone has to fall in line. People are allowed to disagree with homosexuality in the same way that people are allowed to disagree with pineapple on pizza.

Ann lived the majority of her life in a world that oppressed gay people, in a world where LGBT had no rights. It's only natural that the change we've seen over the past few decades is going to come across as strange to somebody like that.

Instead of labelling people as 'hateful' and 'homophobic' and scaring people off voicing their opinions, focus on educating people who are living in the past.

It makes a mockery of ANY community when that community starts disregarding every single person that disagrees with them.

Do you think we got to where we are today by screaming 'HOMOPHOBE' at everyone who cringes at two guys making out?

No, we got to where we are today through debates, through the votes that Ann took part in, through discussion and most importantly through education.

Let the old lady eat her biccies in peace.

:nono:

:clap1: Great post.

[Tom4784]

I think its pretty clear from watching Ann that she isn't homophobic. The issue she has with LGBT rights are about her religious beliefs but I don't see anyone calling the pope a homophobe. :shrug:

I'm not talking about Ann really, I just didn't agree with the logic of someone not being considered a homophobe just because 'there are worse people out there'. Hate is hate.

[empire]

but two men kissing or marrying is just not some people's cup of tea, just as some gay people think that a straight couple kissing or marrying is just not appealing, now throwing a card at ann is just not fair, does she say that gays should be killed no, because years ago derick and kemal tried to throw that card on science and they looked like fools in the end, and science did say that you can do what you like when kemal said that two men kissing and holding hands, ann is comfortable with gay people but there are things that they do that just don't appeal to her as mush as what some of the young ones say in there, and ann had a reason for voting shane because they where doing the samething over and over again, and being stuck in that house 24/7 it can get boring.

[Tom4784]

but two men kissing or marrying is just not some people's cup of tea, just as some gay people think that a straight couple kissing or marrying is just not appealing, now throwing a card at ann is just not fair, does she say that gays should be killed no, because years ago derick and kemal tried to throw that card on science and they looked like fools in the end, and science did say that you can do what you like when kemal said that two men kissing and holding hands, ann is comfortable with gay people but there are things that they do that just don't appeal to her as mush as what some of the young ones say in there, and ann had a reason for voting shane because they where doing the samething over and over again, and being stuck in that house 24/7 it can get boring.

People are allowed to think that someone is homophobic.

[Marsh.]

but two men kissing or marrying is just not some people's cup of tea, just as some gay people think that a straight couple kissing or marrying is just not appealing, now throwing a card at ann is just not fair, does she say that gays should be killed no, because years ago derick and kemal tried to throw that card on science and they looked like fools in the end, and science did say that you can do what you like when kemal said that two men kissing and holding hands, ann is comfortable with gay people but there are things that they do that just don't appeal to her as mush as what some of the young ones say in there, and ann had a reason for voting shane because they where doing the samething over and over again, and being stuck in that house 24/7 it can get boring.

I completely understand her not finding PDA's appealing.

But marriage? What's that got to do with it? Nobody's forced her to attend a gay wedding have they?

Oh, but wait she's against heterosexual marriage too?
Oh BUT WAIT, she thinks people should only adopt when in a stable marriage, HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

Nope, not homophobic. Just a bit fussy.

[Lstan]

I'm not talking about Ann really, I just didn't agree with the logic of someone not being considered a homophobe just because 'there are worse people out there'. Hate is hate.

I see what you are saying and I agree.

[montblanc]

she's homophobic it's not rocket science

[GoldHeart]

Gay man here. Read up on her voting history before she went in. She never heavily campaigned against anything LGBT so I never put it down to anything but a generational educational gap.

Nothing in Ann screams hatred towards LGBT, she has calm and collected talks with Shane J in the house about these issues, something that a real homophobe would never do.

As someone who's dealt with real homophobia, I worry that your sheltered voice of 'anyone who disagrees with us is a homophobe and should have no friends' is a lot more harmful than a 70 year old lady that has never raised her voice once in the house.

You can't just assume that because we have more rights and representation now, that everyone has to fall in line. People are allowed to disagree with homosexuality in the same way that people are allowed to disagree with pineapple on pizza.

Ann lived the majority of her life in a world that oppressed gay people, in a world where LGBT had no rights. It's only natural that the change we've seen over the past few decades is going to come across as strange to somebody like that.

Instead of labelling people as 'hateful' and 'homophobic' and scaring people off voicing their opinions, focus on educating people who are living in the past.

It makes a mockery of ANY community when that community starts disregarding every single person that disagrees with them.

Do you think we got to where we are today by screaming 'HOMOPHOBE' at everyone who cringes at two guys making out?

No, we got to where we are today through debates, through the votes that Ann took part in, through discussion and most importantly through education.

Let the old lady eat her biccies in peace.

:nono:

:joker: Brilliant post :clap1:.

I hate how words get thrown around , if anything education is needed for understanding what "homophobia" actually is before accusing people of it .

Another word that's thrown around alot is "bully" and its usually if someone is just opinionated towards people . That's not what a bully is :facepalm: , infact both homophobia & bullying involve hatred , intimidation and verbal abuse /physical attacking .

We live in a world now that's overly PC and people end up walking on egg shells in fear of hurting or saying the wrong thing .

[montblanc]

:joker: Brilliant post :clap1:.

I hate how words get thrown around , if anything education is needed for understanding what "homophobia" actually is before accusing people of it .

Another word that's thrown around alot is "bully" and its usually if someone is just opinionated towards people . That's not what a bully is :facepalm: , infact both homophobia & bullying involve hatred , intimidation and verbal abuse /physical attacking .

We live in a world now that's overly PC and people end up walking on egg shells in fear of hurting or saying the wrong thing .

you can still be homophobic/racist without doing those things lol

[puzzled]

To be fair, Shandrew has made me homophobic

:joker::joker::joker:

[GoldHeart]

you can still be homophobic/racist without doing those things lol

A genuine homophobic person wouldn't be so close to Amanda & Wayne !!! think before you throw accusations around :facepalm: .

Ann has her views , she's not going to change them to fit into a scared overly PC world where people are too frightened to express themselves, so they jump on the bandwagons instead :bored:.

She's a 70 year old who doesn't need to please people for the sake of it . She wouldn't give Shane J the time of day if she hated him/his sexuality , she has sat down and listened and had discussions .

If she was soo prejudice she wouldn't bother and she'd probably avoid Shane J all together . She even tried to be understanding with India .

[JerseyWins]

Eh idk how to define homophobia exactly but I'd probably say she's homophobic but not in a way that requires outrage. Nothing about Ann is malicious or harmful she just has OLD views on a lot of things. She's an old lady coming from a different time and sticks to her religious beliefs. It'd be different if she made disgusting comments on it or was purposely hateful towards the gay people around her but that's just not the case from what we've seen. There are different levels to things you know.

I don't blame people if they take offense and dislike her for her views but I like her for being straightforward, putting people in their place, being both intentionally and unintentionally/ironically funny in many instances and just generally not giving a sh!t. :joker:

[Binbin]

she gets away with it because she is quite hideously ugly.

[Withano]

I think its pretty clear from watching Ann that she isn't homophobic. The issue she has with LGBT rights are about her religious beliefs but I don't see anyone calling the pope a homophobe. :shrug:

The pope is fully accepting of the lgbt community and thinks that the Catholic church should apologise to, and embrace them. So. Terrible argument.

[Withano]

Theres a scale of homophobia, it isnt a yes or no. Nobody is suggesting that Ann is a full-on 10/10 that goes round on punching sprees on weekends, but she is in a house that unanimously accepts homosexuality (because like, we're not ancient anymore), yet shes still clearly uncomfortable, shes still against equal rights, and she seems completely unwilling to engage in any learning curve. She features on that homophobic scale for sure, nobody else in the house does.

[Garfie]

Gay man here. Read up on her voting history before she went in. She never heavily campaigned against anything LGBT so I never put it down to anything but a generational educational gap.

Nothing in Ann screams hatred towards LGBT, she has calm and collected talks with Shane J in the house about these issues, something that a real homophobe would never do.

As someone who's dealt with real homophobia, I worry that your sheltered voice of 'anyone who disagrees with us is a homophobe and should have no friends' is a lot more harmful than a 70 year old lady that has never raised her voice once in the house.

You can't just assume that because we have more rights and representation now, that everyone has to fall in line. People are allowed to disagree with homosexuality in the same way that people are allowed to disagree with pineapple on pizza.

Ann lived the majority of her life in a world that oppressed gay people, in a world where LGBT had no rights. It's only natural that the change we've seen over the past few decades is going to come across as strange to somebody like that.

Instead of labelling people as 'hateful' and 'homophobic' and scaring people off voicing their opinions, focus on educating people who are living in the past.

It makes a mockery of ANY community when that community starts disregarding every single person that disagrees with them.

Do you think we got to where we are today by screaming 'HOMOPHOBE' at everyone who cringes at two guys making out?

No, we got to where we are today through debates, through the votes that Ann took part in, through discussion and most importantly through education.

Let the old lady eat her biccies in peace.

:nono:

:clap1: Excellent post.

[GoldHeart]

Theres a scale of homophobia, it isnt a yes or no. Nobody is suggesting that Ann is a full-on 10/10 that goes round on punching sprees on weekends, but she is in a house that unanimously accepts homosexuality (because like, we're not ancient anymore), yet shes still clearly uncomfortable, shes still against equal rights, and she seems completely unwilling to engage in any learning curve. She features on that homophobic scale for sure, nobody else in the house does.

But John Barnes was given mad grief , then as soon as he's evicted the poor guy has to clear things up in his interview and all of a sudden people are like "ohhh he's a nice guy" oh "he's not that bad" :bored: . When he was always a nice guy but they wanted to see the bad in him,and were waiting to be offended and they jumped on him with a major overreaction.

And i think people are making too much of a fuss over Ann's views, she seems to get on with people as long as they don't disrespect her . And its more a generation thing as Andrew & Shane J are mentally 10 years old !!! and she doesn't have time for immature antics .

But what exactly do people want Ann to do ? start wearing a rainbow flag , and start jumping around in the garden with Shane J .

Like i've said people need to focus on real discrimination and stop moaning about a 70 year old politician's views :facepalm: .

[Withano]

.

Like i've said people need to focus on real discrimination and stop moaning about a 70 year old politician's views :facepalm: .

Your literally in a big brother forum. Why would you expect to see more threads on 'real discrimination' than a lesser form of discrimination that comes from a housemate on big brother?! Ann too, will have a chance to defend herself and people may or may not change their mind on her... until then, obviously people will discuss the housemates of big brother on a big brother forum. You're in the wrong place if you wanna be focussing on something else!

[LeatherTrumpet]

id be interested yo know the age of the OP

I suspect its rather young...

:idc:

[GoldHeart]

Your literally in a big brother forum. Why would you expect to see more threads on 'real discrimination' than a lesser form of discrimination that comes from a housemate on big brother?! Ann too, will have a chance to defend herself and people may or may not change their mind on her... until then, obviously people will discuss the housemates of big brother on a big brother forum. You're in the wrong place if you wanna be focussing on something else!

FGS :bored: . I think we've all grasped that it's a place for discussion ,but this is just going round in circles.

And I didn't mean talk about serious discrimination necessarily on this BB section,I'm just saying people lose sight of other stuff .

[Withano]

FGS :bored: . I think we've all grasped that it's a place for discussion ,but this is just going round in circles.

And I didn't mean talk about serious discrimination necessarily on this BB section,I'm just saying people lose sight of other stuff .

Do they? Do they lose sight of other stuff? Are people forgetting about LGBT rights in central Africa every time they discuss Ann Widdecombe in Celebrity big brother? This is the place to talk about Ann widdecombe on cbb. Nobody forced you on the thread, but people will talk about her in cbb until she is evicted, and even if a similar discussion has been had before. You shouldn't be surprised by the thought of this.

[jaxie]

The pope is fully accepting of the lgbt community and thinks that the Catholic church should apologise to, and embrace them. So. Terrible argument.

Oh really? Well I'm perched for the first gay marriage in a catholic church and lesbian cardinal. Did he give you any dates for that at all?

[smudgie]

I think the problem is everything has to be under the phobia umbrella.
If somebody doesn’t believe in same sex marriage due to religious beliefs then they are classed as homophobic, could that mean that people that believe that statement are Christaphobic?
I am not trying to be glib, just trying to explain that I think throwing everything together under any phobic title sort of waters down the real issues people have to deal with.
This coming from an atheist who believes people have a right to believe in god if they so wish.

[Lilac hills]

Your literally in a big brother forum. Why would you expect to see more threads on 'real discrimination' than a lesser form of discrimination that comes from a housemate on big brother?! Ann too, will have a chance to defend herself and people may or may not change their mind on her... until then, obviously people will discuss the housemates of big brother on a big brother forum. You're in the wrong place if you wanna be focussing on something else!

Why would she need to defend herself for being repulsed by those two idiots?

The one that will need to defend himself is Andrew

[Paula D]

Here's my take on it.

I DON'T CARE if Ann is a homophobe or not. It's up for debate certainly and there are various different viewpoints.

However I am sick to death of this HOW IS SHE GETTING AWAY WITH IT hysterics.

Every second thread on here now is "so and so is a Homophobe". It's boring. Same with John Barnes who actually quite clearly is NOT a homophobe.

What on earth do gay people want from the world? That NO-ONE ever disagrees with them? Seriously? There's some growing up that needs to be done if you think you're going to go through this life without someone criticising you or not approving of you.

If you take it to heart every single time you're going to have a very hard life.

I'm also sick of hearing about Ann's vote against gay marriage. We live in a democratic society, she has a right to that vote the same as anyone else. If the referendum had failed I'd see a reason maybe for some resentment but it didn't fail so what's the problem?

[Bones]

After Ann's comments tonight and several other times ie two men rolling around on the floor being disgusting, how is she so popular and seems to be getting away with being clearly HOMOPHOBIC!!!!

Quit whining. I think that you are heterophobic.

[Bones]

Here's my take on it.

I DON'T CARE if Ann is a homophobe or not. It's up for debate certainly and there are various different viewpoints.

However I am sick to death of this HOW IS SHE GETTING AWAY WITH IT hysterics.

Every second thread on here now is "so and so is a Homophobe". It's boring. Same with John Barnes who actually quite clearly is NOT a homophobe.

What on earth do gay people want from the world? That NO-ONE ever disagrees with them? Seriously? There's some growing up that needs to be done if you think you're going to go through this life without someone criticising you or not approving of you.

If you take it to heart every single time you're going to have a very hard life.

I'm also sick of hearing about Ann's vote against gay marriage. We live in a democratic society, she has a right to that vote the same as anyone else. If the referendum had failed I'd see a reason maybe for some resentment but it didn't fail so what's the problem?

Yes indeed! :clap1:

[chuff me dizzy]

Here's my take on it.

I DON'T CARE if Ann is a homophobe or not. It's up for debate certainly and there are various different viewpoints.

However I am sick to death of this HOW IS SHE GETTING AWAY WITH IT hysterics.

Every second thread on here now is "so and so is a Homophobe". It's boring. Same with John Barnes who actually quite clearly is NOT a homophobe.

What on earth do gay people want from the world? That NO-ONE ever disagrees with them? Seriously? There's some growing up that needs to be done if you think you're going to go through this life without someone criticising you or not approving of you.

If you take it to heart every single time you're going to have a very hard life.

I'm also sick of hearing about Ann's vote against gay marriage. We live in a democratic society, she has a right to that vote the same as anyone else. If the referendum had failed I'd see a reason maybe for some resentment but it didn't fail so what's the problem?

This is TIBB ,it happens every year ,if you don't follow the gang and support who they all blindly support you are either racist,homophobic,transphobic,sexist,xenophobic ........ This is why I like and defend who I choose not my mates in a chat room ,and Ive got to tag along or the "gang" may not like me ... How boring is that ? Its lovely to have your own mind ,and if they feel like throwing a "Bic" at me I will bat it off and carry on regardless

[Bones]

This is TIBB ,it happens every year ,if you don't follow the gang and support who they all blindly support you are either racist,homophobic,transphobic,sexist,xenophobic ........ This is why I like and defend who I choose not my mates in a chat room ,and Ive got to tag along or the "gang" may not like me ... How boring is that ? Its lovely to have your own mind ,and if they feel like throwing a "Bic" at me I will bat it off and carry on regardless

Don't be fool now. You have to realize that you are phobic person and you need some help.

[Jamie89]

Theres a scale of homophobia, it isnt a yes or no. Nobody is suggesting that Ann is a full-on 10/10 that goes round on punching sprees on weekends, but she is in a house that unanimously accepts homosexuality (because like, we're not ancient anymore), yet shes still clearly uncomfortable, shes still against equal rights, and she seems completely unwilling to engage in any learning curve. She features on that homophobic scale for sure, nobody else in the house does.

This

I don't think Ann hates gay people. And it's as clear that she has homophobic views as it is that she's friendly with gay people, and both of those things can be true without one dubunking the other.
I don't accept her religion or age as excuses for her homophobia though as plenty of people in both categories aren't, and she's shown her religion doesn't always dictate her politics, for example the Roman Catholic church is against the use of condoms yet she advocated for them in prisons in order to protect people (straight men interestingly enough)... so as she saw it there was a morally just reason for her to go against her religious teachings, she chooses which aspects of her religion to follow in regards to her politics based on her personal feelings therefore she's either homophobic or she's a hypocrite, and personally I don't think she's a hypocrite.

I think it's also important to note that she converted to the catholic church because they were more in line with her views. So she doesn't hold the views she has because of the church's teachings, she chose the church because of views she already held.

But yeah like I said I don't think she's a hateful person and she's by no means the worst type of homophobe. And really, if her job hadn't been what it was we probably wouldn't even be aware of any of this stuff. She's only ever discussed her views when she's been asked directly so it's not as though she's been trying to shove them down peoples throats, she's spoken very highly at times of Amanda/Wayne/Shane J, and the nomination reason she gave last night would probably have just been put down to her being a prude if we didn't know of her political background (and she's a prude as well as being a bit homophobic so that probably doesn't help perception of her :laugh: ) Normally we wouldn't know so in depth the political views of housemates though and if we did, we'd probably have very different opinions of a lot of them so Ann's not really on a level playing field here and just judging how she is with people in a real life context, she's been very friendly and respectful with the gay housemates and that goes a long way. I'm not saying her homophobia is 'ok' and she's in there to be judged so criticism of her is fair, but at the same time if people judge her more positively I think there's also plenty of reason for that too, I think denying her homophobia completely is a bit narrow minded though, but then so is making her out to be an extreme example of homophobia, basically both sides of the argument have validity to them because she falls somewhere in the middle of it.

[poppsywoppsy]

Here's my take on it.

I DON'T CARE if Ann is a homophobe or not. It's up for debate certainly and there are various different viewpoints.

However I am sick to death of this HOW IS SHE GETTING AWAY WITH IT hysterics.

Every second thread on here now is "so and so is a Homophobe". It's boring. Same with John Barnes who actually quite clearly is NOT a homophobe.

What on earth do gay people want from the world? That NO-ONE ever disagrees with them? Seriously? There's some growing up that needs to be done if you think you're going to go through this life without someone criticising you or not approving of you.

If you take it to heart every single time you're going to have a very hard life.

I'm also sick of hearing about Ann's vote against gay marriage. We live in a democratic society, she has a right to that vote the same as anyone else. If the referendum had failed I'd see a reason maybe for some resentment but it didn't fail so what's the problem?


Absolutely spot on.

Has the younger generation never heard of DIVERSITY?

It makes the world go round, is up for discussion after discussion and stops dictatorship by one group over another.

It works both ways, gays have so much more freedom of expression, more than they ever had, they keep pushing the boundaries of acceptance but they will never get 100% how some people seem to expect and neither should they.

If they keep being more and more outrageous, they will find it unacceptable to others. Gays are no more righteous than anyone else in this because they are people at the end of the day and deserve no more or less than anyone else.

[poppsywoppsy]

This

I don't think Ann hates gay people. And it's as clear that she has homophobic views as it is that she's friendly with gay people, and both of those things can be true without one dubunking the other.
I don't accept her religion or age as excuses for her homophobia though as plenty of people in both categories aren't, and she's shown her religion doesn't always dictate her politics, for example the Roman Catholic church is against the use of condoms yet she advocated for them in prisons in order to protect people (straight men interestingly enough)... so as she saw it there was a morally just reason for her to go against her religious teachings, she chooses which aspects of her religion to follow in regards to her politics based on her personal feelings therefore she's either homophobic or she's a hypocrite, and personally I don't think she's a hypocrite.

I think it's also important to note that she converted to the catholic church because they were more in line with her views. So she doesn't hold the views she has because of the church's teachings, she chose the church because of views she already held.

But yeah like I said I don't think she's a hateful person and she's by no means the worst type of homophobe. And really, if her job hadn't been what it was we probably wouldn't even be aware of any of this stuff. She's only ever discussed her views when she's been asked directly so it's not as though she's been trying to shove them down peoples throats, she's spoken very highly at times of Amanda/Wayne/Shane J, and the nomination reason she gave last night would probably have just been put down to her being a prude if we didn't know of her political background (and she's a prude as well as being a bit homophobic so that probably doesn't help perception of her :laugh: ) Normally we wouldn't know so in depth the political views of housemates though and if we did, we'd probably have very different opinions of a lot of them so Ann's not really on a level playing field here and just judging how she is with people in a real life context, she's been very friendly and respectful with the gay housemates and that goes a long way. I'm not saying her homophobia is 'ok' and she's in there to be judged so criticism of her is fair, but at the same time if people judge her more positively I think there's also plenty of reason for that too, I think denying her homophobia completely is a bit narrow minded though, but then so is making her out to be an extreme example of homophobia, basically both sides of the argument have validity to them because she falls somewhere in the middle of it.


Wouldn't Ann's reply be, That's OK, it's your opinion and then move on.

I wish others would

[chuff me dizzy]

Absolutely spot on.

Has the younger generation never heard of DIVERSITY?

It makes the world go round, is up for discussion after discussion and stops dictatorship by one group over another.

It works both ways, gays have so much more freedom of expression, more than they ever had, they keep pushing the boundaries of acceptance but they will never get 100% how some people seem to expect and neither should they.

If they keep being more and more outrageous, they will find it unacceptable to others. Gays are no more righteous than anyone else in this because they are people at the end of the day and deserve no more or less than anyone else.

:clap1:

[Jamie89]

Wouldn't Ann's reply be, That's OK, it's your opinion and then move on.

I wish others would

Definitely. Just because she wouldn't want to argue it herself though it doesn't mean people shouldn't talk about that aspect of her, I do think the extent of it/number of threads about it etc is a bit much, but we're on here to talk about the housemates after all so it's all fair game. Someone shouldn't go on the show if they don't want their views judged and discussed.

[Cherie]

Here's my take on it.

I DON'T CARE if Ann is a homophobe or not. It's up for debate certainly and there are various different viewpoints.

However I am sick to death of this HOW IS SHE GETTING AWAY WITH IT hysterics.

Every second thread on here now is "so and so is a Homophobe". It's boring. Same with John Barnes who actually quite clearly is NOT a homophobe.

What on earth do gay people want from the world? That NO-ONE ever disagrees with them? Seriously? There's some growing up that needs to be done if you think you're going to go through this life without someone criticising you or not approving of you.

If you take it to heart every single time you're going to have a very hard life.

I'm also sick of hearing about Ann's vote against gay marriage. We live in a democratic society, she has a right to that vote the same as anyone else. If the referendum had failed I'd see a reason maybe for some resentment but it didn't fail so what's the problem?


:clap1: it appears on TiBB at least that perceived homophobic is ALOT worse than the poor treatment of women in the house if you judge it by the threads, the homophobia threads are pages long and Andrews treatment of women is barely raising a whisper

[chuff me dizzy]

:clap1: it appears on TiBB at least that perceived homophobic is ALOT worse than the poor treatment of women in the house if you judge it by the threads, the homophobia threads are pages long and Andrews treatment of women is barely raising a whisper

True Cherie, double standards as per usual and lots of "Poor me " thrown into the mix

[Denver]

:clap1: it appears on TiBB at least that perceived homophobic is ALOT worse than the poor treatment of women in the house if you judge it by the threads, the homophobia threads are pages long and Andrews treatment of women is barely raising a whisper

You think TIBB care about women's rights?

[chuff me dizzy]

You think TIBB care about women's rights?

Nope !!

[poppsywoppsy]

Definitely. Just because she wouldn't want to argue it herself though it doesn't mean people shouldn't talk about that aspect of her, I do think the extent of it/number of threads about it etc is a bit much, but we're on here to talk about the housemates after all so it's all fair game. Someone shouldn't go on the show if they don't want their views judged and discussed.

I disagree, she would expect you to have your views and expect the same in return.

Nothing more

[Tom4784]

I think the problem is everything has to be under the phobia umbrella.
If somebody doesn’t believe in same sex marriage due to religious beliefs then they are classed as homophobic, could that mean that people that believe that statement are Christaphobic?
I am not trying to be glib, just trying to explain that I think throwing everything together under any phobic title sort of waters down the real issues people have to deal with.
This coming from an atheist who believes people have a right to believe in god if they so wish.

Saying things like Christophobia is like saying heterophobia with a straight face, neither exist because both are the majority in their fields. A majority can never truly be discriminated against because they are the majority.

The 'Phobia umbrella' comment only seeks to undermine the fact that these problems still exist. Is Ann not comfortable around gay people? Yes. Has she voted against gay rights in the past? Yes. She IS a homophobe, she may not be out there hunting down gays and executing them but she does have a homophobic attitude.

Religion ultimately isn't an excuse for bigotry, especially with something like Christianity since the bible is FULL of contradictions, you cannot realistically follow all it's teachings, you have to pick and choose and people who choose to believe that homosexuality is wrong yet don't see an issue with wearing different kinds of materials or eating shellfish should not be protected by their religion.

Religion comes under the umbrella of Free Speech, she's allowed to be homophobic as long as it doesn't transcend into hate preaching or violence and people are allowed to criticise her and the religion she uses to justify her beliefs as long as they abide by the same rules she does.

[Vanessa]

Saying things like Christophobia is like saying heterophobia with a straight face, neither exist because both are the majority in their fields. A majority can never truly be discriminated against because they are the majority.

The 'Phobia umbrella' comment only seeks to undermine the fact that these problems still exist. Is Ann not comfortable around gay people? Yes. Has she voted against gay rights in the past? Yes. She IS a homophobe, she may not be out there hunting down gays and executing them but she does have a homophobic attitude.

Religion ultimately isn't an excuse for bigotry, especially with something like Christianity since the bible is FULL of contradictions, you cannot realistically follow all it's teachings, you have to pick and choose and people who choose to believe that homosexuality is wrong yet don't see an issue with wearing different kinds of materials or eating shellfish should not be protected by their religion.

Religion comes under the umbrella of Free Speech, she's allowed to be homophobic as long as it doesn't transcend into hate preaching or violence and people are allowed to criticise her and the religion she uses to justify her beliefs as long as they abide by the same rules she does.:clap2:

[montblanc]

A genuine homophobic person wouldn't be so close to Amanda & Wayne !!! think before you throw accusations around :facepalm: .

Ann has her views , she's not going to change them to fit into a scared overly PC world where people are too frightened to express themselves, so they jump on the bandwagons instead :bored:.

She's a 70 year old who doesn't need to please people for the sake of it . She wouldn't give Shane J the time of day if she hated him/his sexuality , she has sat down and listened and had discussions .

If she was soo prejudice she wouldn't bother and she'd probably avoid Shane J all together . She even tried to be understanding with India .

internalized homophobia is a thing

[Cherie]

You think TIBB care about women's rights?

well when it boils down no, makes a mockery of generally supporting female hms :laugh:

[Alf]

Saying things like Christophobia is like saying heterophobia with a straight face, neither exist because both are the majority in their fields. A majority can never truly be discriminated against because they are the majority.

The 'Phobia umbrella' comment only seeks to undermine the fact that these problems still exist. Is Ann not comfortable around gay people? Yes. Has she voted against gay rights in the past? Yes. She IS a homophobe, she may not be out there hunting down gays and executing them but she does have a homophobic attitude.

Religion ultimately isn't an excuse for bigotry, especially with something like Christianity since the bible is FULL of contradictions, you cannot realistically follow all it's teachings, you have to pick and choose and people who choose to believe that homosexuality is wrong yet don't see an issue with wearing different kinds of materials or eating shellfish should not be protected by their religion.

Religion comes under the umbrella of Free Speech, she's allowed to be homophobic as long as it doesn't transcend into hate preaching or violence and people are allowed to criticise her and the religion she uses to justify her beliefs as long as they abide by the same rules she does.You sound like you have a phobia of majority's? It's ok if you have, because people can't help having phobias.

Maybe you should address your own phobia before lecturing others on theirs?

[montblanc]

Saying things like Christophobia is like saying heterophobia with a straight face, neither exist because both are the majority in their fields. A majority can never truly be discriminated against because they are the majority.

The 'Phobia umbrella' comment only seeks to undermine the fact that these problems still exist. Is Ann not comfortable around gay people? Yes. Has she voted against gay rights in the past? Yes. She IS a homophobe, she may not be out there hunting down gays and executing them but she does have a homophobic attitude.

Religion ultimately isn't an excuse for bigotry, especially with something like Christianity since the bible is FULL of contradictions, you cannot realistically follow all it's teachings, you have to pick and choose and people who choose to believe that homosexuality is wrong yet don't see an issue with wearing different kinds of materials or eating shellfish should not be protected by their religion.

Religion comes under the umbrella of Free Speech, she's allowed to be homophobic as long as it doesn't transcend into hate preaching or violence and people are allowed to criticise her and the religion she uses to justify her beliefs as long as they abide by the same rules she does.

well said :clap1:

[Paula D]

You think TIBB care about women's rights?

No, that's true. Funny how homosexuals expect women to back them in everything they do but don't give the same loyalty back.

[Bones]

well said :clap1:

brown noser.

[chuff me dizzy]

No, that's true. Funny how homosexuals expect women to back them in everything they do but don't give the same loyalty back.

:clap1:

[-Sue-]

No, that's true. Funny how homosexuals expect women to back them in everything they do but don't give the same loyalty back. did you REALLY just tar everyone 'homosexual' with the same brush? sheesh shame on you! :nono:

[reece(:]

If it was a younger HM doing it, they'd be pulled up and warned

[Alf]

If it was a younger HM doing it, they'd be pulled up and warnedDoing what?

[Kazanne]

If it was a younger HM doing it, they'd be pulled up and warned

No they wouldn't as she's said nothing wrong,all this fuss because she feels uncomfortable having those two thrusting about and talking dirty simply to piss her off , I am so glad it has backfired and Andrew has his cards marked.

[Lilac hills]

Saying things like Christophobia is like saying heterophobia with a straight face, neither exist because both are the majority in their fields. A majority can never truly be discriminated against because they are the majority.

The 'Phobia umbrella' comment only seeks to undermine the fact that these problems still exist. Is Ann not comfortable around gay people? Yes. Has she voted against gay rights in the past? Yes. She IS a homophobe, she may not be out there hunting down gays and executing them but she does have a homophobic attitude.

Religion ultimately isn't an excuse for bigotry, especially with something like Christianity since the bible is FULL of contradictions, you cannot realistically follow all it's teachings, you have to pick and choose and people who choose to believe that homosexuality is wrong yet don't see an issue with wearing different kinds of materials or eating shellfish should not be protected by their religion.

Religion comes under the umbrella of Free Speech, she's allowed to be homophobic as long as it doesn't transcend into hate preaching or violence and people are allowed to criticise her and the religion she uses to justify her beliefs as long as they abide by the same rules she does.

Lmao

[-Sue-]

Imagine if Bear had been in the house with Ann.. oooooooooooh!

[chuff me dizzy]

No they wouldn't as she's said nothing wrong,all this fuss because she feels uncomfortable having those two thrusting about and talking dirty simply to piss her off , I am so glad it has backfired and Andrew has his cards marked.

Oh so am I

[-Sue-]

I like andrews antics he and shane have made me chuckle lots this series (although also found the c bomb too much) I would have been angry too if someone had brought my family into a 'nomination' that was really a moment for 1 to 1 conversation.. which ann managed to do with ashley but in regards to andrew she just made it hugely public and awkward...

[-Sue-]

.. will i be sad to see andrew go? hmm not really i've had my fun :)

[Kazanne]

I like andrews antics he and shane have made me chuckle lots this series (although also found the c bomb too much) I would have been angry too if someone had brought my family into a 'nomination' that was really a moment for 1 to 1 conversation.. which ann managed to do with ashley but in regards to andrew she just made it hugely public and awkward...

It got Isabell the win so fingers crossed for Ann:joker:

[-Sue-]

It got Isabell the win so fingers crossed for Ann:joker:
OMG that thing that needed a wallpaper scraper to get off her fake tan! the oompah loompah! lol

I still have nightmares about that lol :joker:

[Kazanne]

I like andrews antics he and shane have made me chuckle lots this series (although also found the c bomb too much) I would have been angry too if someone had brought my family into a 'nomination' that was really a moment for 1 to 1 conversation.. which ann managed to do with ashley but in regards to andrew she just made it hugely public and awkward...

That's fine that you like filthy talk , disrespect to women , watching him having his arse waxed and duping his mate , upsetting your girlfriend and a guy who must stink like a chimney , and drops the C word to a lady , thankfully some of us are not entertained by it , hope he's out tonight

[chuff me dizzy]

That's fine that you like filthy talk , disrespect to women , watching him having his arse waxed and duping his mate , upsetting your girlfriend and a guy who must stink like a chimney , and drops the C word to a lady , thankfully some of us are not entertained by it , hope he's out tonight

:worship: I prefer to watch nice people

[-Sue-]

That's fine that you like filthy talk , disrespect to women , watching him having his arse waxed and duping his mate , upsetting your girlfriend and a guy who must stink like a chimney , and drops the C word to a lady , thankfully some of us are not entertained by it , hope he's out tonight

'(although also found the c bomb too much)' :shrug: keep up kiddo ;)

^^ said that in my post or did you skip that bit? :shrug:

[Kazanne]

'(although also found the c bomb too much)' :shrug: keep up kiddo ;)

^^ said that in my post or did you skip that bit? :shrug:

I read it ,you only found the C bomb too much,:joker: keep up have you been watching it? his breathing is too much.

[Kazanne]

OMG that thing that needed a wallpaper scraper to get off her fake tan! the oompah loompah! lol

I still have nightmares about that lol :joker:

Why call her a thing ? and oompah loompa ? she actually turned out to be a nice girl as much as I judged her when she first went in, maybe you are tanophobic:laugh:

[-Sue-]

I read it ,you only found the C bomb too much,:joker: keep up have you been watching it? his breathing is too much.

I do so hate it when people's only response to my opinion is 'do you watch?' it gets old

anyway moving swiftly on really hope you enjoy the show tonight got all snacks etc in? who do you want out the most? :D (1st 2 I can guess) lol

[-Sue-]

Why call her a thing ? and oompah loompa ? she actually turned out to be a nice girl as much as I judged her when she first went in, maybe you are tanophobic:laugh:


LOL Tanophobic lol yes I think I might be .. I may need to start a 'when tanning goes to far support group' lol sponsored by Dulux white paint ;) :joker:

[Tom4784]

You sound like you have a phobia of majority's? It's ok if you have, because people can't help having phobias.

Maybe you should address your own phobia before lecturing others on theirs?

That doesn't exist, Alfie.

[Robertocarlo]

To be fair, Shandrew has made me homophobic

Thanks for that comment. As a Gay man, now aged 64, who has had to go through my young adulthood in the closet because of 'homophobes', it saddens me just how many people are (a) accepting of an out and out bigot and homophobe, i.e. Ann; and (b) are willing to identify themselves as 'homophobic'.

I wonder if you have any concept of just how bad it was being treated as a second class citizen. The prudity and simmering homophobia of this current generation really does frighten me.

[poppsywoppsy]

Thanks for that comment. As a Gay man, now aged 64, who has had to go through my young adulthood in the closet because of 'homophobes', it saddens me just how many people are (a) accepting of an out and out bigot and homophobe, i.e. Ann; and (b) are willing to identify themselves as 'homophobic'.

I wonder if you have any concept of just how bad it was being treated as a second class citizen. The prudity and simmering homophobia of this current generation really does frighten me.

Well you must be pleased that the sands of opinion have shifted and now there seems to be an about turn on homophobia sometimes to the extent of a witch Hunt as in the John Barnes debacle.

Gays are not the only second class citizens in this world, women have been in the past, ageism is rife especially in younger generations, immigration etc etc, many other groups so please do not class yourself as the only victims. Yes, they do have a concept too.

[Robertocarlo]

Well you must be pleased that the sands of opinion have shifted and now there seems to be an about turn on homophobia sometimes to the extent of a witch Hunt as in the John Barnes debacle.

Gays are not the only second class citizens in this world, women have been in the past, ageism is rife especially in younger generations, immigration etc etc, many other groups so please do not class yourself as the only victims. Yes, they do have a concept too.

Nowhere have I said I believe LGBT rights to be the only victims? We are but one of many when it comes to equality. As this all stems from Ann's bigotry and homophobia towards Andrew and Courtney naturally that's why I made my comments against it.

[Paula D]

Nowhere have I said I believe LGBT rights to be the only victims? We are but one of many when it comes to equality. As this all stems from Ann's bigotry and homophobia towards Andrew and Courtney naturally that's why I made my comments against it.

Again, you are the very definition of a bigot:

bigot


/ˈbɪɡət/


noun

noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots




a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"


synonyms: dogmatist, partisan, sectarian, prejudiced person; More

[Robertocarlo]

Again, you are the very definition of a bigot:

bigot


/ˈbɪɡət/


noun

noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots




a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"


synonyms: dogmatist, partisan, sectarian, prejudiced person; More

Well, if I am to be labelled a 'bigot' for calling Ann out on her vile views of Gay people; For having voted in Parliament at every opportunity against any LGBT rights in England and Wales; for trying to deny my right to equal marriage; for denying a woman's right to have an abortion; for happily ensuring that women prisoners giving birth be chained to their beds when she was Prisons Minister; then bring it on. I'll happily wear that 'bigot' label for you!

[poppsywoppsy]

Nowhere have I said I believe LGBT rights to be the only victims? We are but one of many when it comes to equality. As this all stems from Ann's bigotry and homophobia towards Andrew and Courtney naturally that's why I made my comments against it.

Yet Ann has been called just as many revolting things on here or are you missing them out.

[Bones]

That doesn't exist, Alfie.

Yes it does.

[Paula D]

Well, if I am to be labelled a 'bigot' for calling Ann out on her vile views of Gay people; For having voted in Parliament at every opportunity against any LGBT rights in England and Wales; for trying to deny my right to equal marriage; for denying a woman's right to have an abortion; for happily ensuring that women prisoners giving birth be chained to their beds when she was Prisons Minister; then bring it on. I'll happily wear that 'bigot' label for you!

Grand so.

[Robertocarlo]

Yet Ann has been just as many revolting things on here or are you missing them out.

:conf: :conf: :conf: :conf:

[Robodog]

1. Saying things like Christophobia is like saying heterophobia with a straight face, neither exist because both are the majority in their fields.

2. A majority can never truly be discriminated against because they are the majority.



1. Christophobia very much exists. Approx 3000 christians were killed for their faith, in 2017 alone.

This is very real and equally as serious as any other type of persecution.



2. "A majority can never truly be discriminated against because they are the majority."

Discrimination is discrimination.
No matter what the population 'majority/minority' statistics are.
You don't hurt any more or less, according to the number of people in the area who fit your 'type'.

To say that one group of people can be victims and another group can't be victims - that is discriminating in itself.

Who decides these 'groups' anyway?

We are all individuals, with our individual experiences.
We are all a minority - of one.
And as individuals, we stand equal. That's the whole point of equality, a level playing field of individuals.

It's not equality when you start to segregate people off into groups or 'types', and then 'rate' those 'types' according to your world view: putting one 'type' above the other.
It's exactly what racists do: see people not as individuals, but as 'types' and then rate them according to their world view.
We have to be careful not to fall into the same trap of segregating and judging people by our own stereotypical 'types', even if we do mean well.

The individuals of the majority have the same equal rights as the individuals of the minority - or what's the point?

.

[Marsh.]

Apparently, she can get away with it because she's old and because she's religious.

Two things that apparently mean you can be bigoted and not have to be called out on it.

[chuff me dizzy]

1. Christophobia very much exists. Approx 3000 christians were killed for their faith, in 2017 alone.

This is very real and equally as serious as any other type of persecution.



2. "A majority can never truly be discriminated against because they are the majority."

Discrimination is discrimination.
No matter what the population 'majority/minority' statistics are.
You don't hurt any more or less, according to the number of people in the area who fit your 'type'.

To say that one group of people can be victims and another group can't be victims - that is discriminating in itself.

Who decides these 'groups' anyway?

We are all individuals, with our individual experiences.
We are all a minority - of one.
And as individuals, we stand equal. That's the whole point of equality, a level playing field of individuals.

It's not equality when you start to segregate people off into groups or 'types', and then 'rate' those 'types' according to your world view: putting one 'type' above the other.
It's exactly what racists do: see people not as individuals, but as 'types' and then rate them according to their world view.
We have to be careful not to fall into the same trap of segregating and judging people by our own stereotypical 'types', even if we do mean well.

The individuals of the majority have the same equal rights as the individuals of the minority - or what's the point?

.

Once again an excellent comment

[montblanc]

Apparently, she can get away with it because she's old and because she's religious.

Two things that apparently mean you can be bigoted and not have to be called out on it.

tea

[chuff me dizzy]

Again, you are the very definition of a bigot:

bigot


/ˈbɪɡət/


noun

noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots




a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"


synonyms: dogmatist, partisan, sectarian, prejudiced person; More

:clap1: Only "their cause" counts !

[smudgie]

Saying things like Christophobia is like saying heterophobia with a straight face, neither exist because both are the majority in their fields. A majority can never truly be discriminated against because they are the majority.

The 'Phobia umbrella' comment only seeks to undermine the fact that these problems still exist. Is Ann not comfortable around gay people? Yes. Has she voted against gay rights in the past? Yes. She IS a homophobe, she may not be out there hunting down gays and executing them but she does have a homophobic attitude.

Religion ultimately isn't an excuse for bigotry, especially with something like Christianity since the bible is FULL of contradictions, you cannot realistically follow all it's teachings, you have to pick and choose and people who choose to believe that homosexuality is wrong yet don't see an issue with wearing different kinds of materials or eating shellfish should not be protected by their religion.

Religion comes under the umbrella of Free Speech, she's allowed to be homophobic as long as it doesn't transcend into hate preaching or violence and people are allowed to criticise her and the religion she uses to justify her beliefs as long as they abide by the same rules she does.

So maybe Withano was correct when he said that there could be a scale of homophobia.
My reason for asking about Christphobia was just an example.
It seems everything can be phobic nowadays so was wondering if that would be valid.
Perhaps the difference is one is a phobia and the other is an intolerance.
Live and let live I say, personally I can't see why anybody should be judged on their race or sexual preferences.

[poppsywoppsy]

:conf: :conf: :conf: :conf:

Obviously, you have.

Previous post amended.

[Robodog]

Once again an excellent comment

cheers chuff :thumbs:

[chuff me dizzy]

So maybe Withano was correct when he said that there could be a scale of homophobia.
My reason for asking about Christphobia was just an example.
It seems everything can be phobic nowadays so was wondering if that would be valid.
Perhaps the difference is one is a phobia and the other is an intolerance.
Live and let live I say, personally I can't see why anybody should be judged on their race or sexual preferences.

Or demand special treatment for their"cause"

[Marsh.]

:clap1: Only "their cause" counts !

Only their cause is the topic of discussion.

Do you want him to list every problem in the world in this one thread specifically about one woman and her entire bigoted life and career?

[smudgie]

Or demand special treatment for their"cause"

not sure I understand that Chuff.
The way is see it is people are just wanting to be treat as an equal, equality should be a right, not a cause.:conf:

[Cherie]

The thing most people seem to be ignoring is that Andrew is straight, so when Ann is commenting it is towards one gay and one straight person, if this was a gay couple I might have more sympathy, but it's a pretend romance

[Withano]

Or demand special treatment for their"cause"

:suspect: you're not even making sense anymore. You're just stuck on repeat.

[Robertocarlo]

:clap1: Only "their cause" counts !

Sorry, but you're coming across as a typical UKIP voter to me?!

[chuff me dizzy]

Sorry, but you're coming across as a typical UKIP voter to me?!

Thats maybe because i vote for them, are you a clairvoyant ?

[Northern Monkey]

1. Christophobia very much exists. Approx 3000 christians were killed for their faith, in 2017 alone.

This is very real and equally as serious as any other type of persecution.



2. "A majority can never truly be discriminated against because they are the majority."

Discrimination is discrimination.
No matter what the population 'majority/minority' statistics are.
You don't hurt any more or less, according to the number of people in the area who fit your 'type'.

To say that one group of people can be victims and another group can't be victims - that is discriminating in itself.

Who decides these 'groups' anyway?

We are all individuals, with our individual experiences.
We are all a minority - of one.
And as individuals, we stand equal. That's the whole point of equality, a level playing field of individuals.

It's not equality when you start to segregate people off into groups or 'types', and then 'rate' those 'types' according to your world view: putting one 'type' above the other.
It's exactly what racists do: see people not as individuals, but as 'types' and then rate them according to their world view.
We have to be careful not to fall into the same trap of segregating and judging people by our own stereotypical 'types', even if we do mean well.

The individuals of the majority have the same equal rights as the individuals of the minority - or what's the point?

.Too right :clap1:

It’s like this warped view that some people have that minorities can’t be racist.Or white people can’t experience racism.

I experienced much racism as a white person when i went to school in an Asian area.
Cars of twenty something blokes slowly driving past in cars spitting at me and shouting ‘white bastard’ amongst other things.

Not to mention this ‘Christophobia’ is’nt real.Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world.

This ranking peoples victimhood based on some ‘group’they happen to be part of flies in the face of true equality.

[Robertocarlo]

not sure I understand that Chuff.
The way is see it is people are just wanting to be treat as an equal, equality should be a right, not a cause.:conf:

Precisely 'smudgie', equality and not special treatment that's all the LGBT community want.

[chuff me dizzy]

Too right :clap1:

It’s like this warped view that some people have that minorities can’t be racist.Or white people can’t experience racism.

I experienced much racism as a white person when i went to school in an Asian area.
Cars of twenty something blokes slowly driving past in cars spitting at me and shouting ‘white bastard’ amongst other things.

Not to mention this ‘Christophobia’ is’nt real.Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world.

This ranking peoples victimhood based on some ‘group’they happen to be part of flies in the face of true equality.

Racism works both ways, there are areas in my town where white people daren't walk in fear of being spat at and told to leave" their area"

[Marsh.]

Or demand special treatment for their"cause"

So wanting equality is demanding "special treatment"? :joker:

[Northern Monkey]

Racism works both ways, there are areas in my town where white people daren't walk in fear of being spat at and told to leave" their area"

Yep.Just because people don’t see it they think it doesn’t exist.Or some on the far left of politics try and make excuses for it.
Pitting ‘groups’ against each other is not in any way going to achieve equality.Just create divisions and resentment between people.

[chuff me dizzy]

Yep.Just because people don’t see it they think it doesn’t exist.Or some on the far left of politics try and make excuses for it.
Pitting ‘groups’ against each other is not in any way going to achieve equality.Just create divisions and resentment between people.

True my friend

[joeysteele]

If it was a younger HM doing it, they'd be pulled up and warned

You are correct.

[joeysteele]

I like andrews antics he and shane have made me chuckle lots this series (although also found the c bomb too much) I would have been angry too if someone had brought my family into a 'nomination' that was really a moment for 1 to 1 conversation.. which ann managed to do with ashley but in regards to andrew she just made it hugely public and awkward...

Fair point Sue.
I agree all through.

Actually I've liked near all the housemates this series.

The showmance annoyed me but that's done with and didn't take over the highlights too much.
I agree on Andrew too, he's been entertaining to me anyway,as indeed most of them have.

[GoldHeart]

The thing most people seem to be ignoring is that Andrew is straight, so when Ann is commenting it is towards one gay and one straight person, if this was a gay couple I might have more sympathy, but it's a pretend romance

Thank you :clap1:
People keep ignoring that

[Jack_]

Ann's a great housemate and tbh I may even want her to win, but the woman really is pathetic and a disgrace

Her thinly veiled homophobia is appalling, and I'm not surprised Andrew reacted as he did. At the start of last night's episode I thought 'hm the c word seems a little strong' but within the context of what she said to him I don't blame him at all, if someone brought my family into a scenario like that I'd be saying much the same if not worse. Who is she to insinuate that his mum and nan won't be proud of him for play fighting with another man? That's literally all they were doing, it wasn't a PDA at all :umm2:

By the way, the 'she's just a prude' stuff isn't much better an excuse either. I couldn't care less, she's in the ****ing Big Brother house not the Oval Office. Yes, she has every right to her opinion and I completely respect the fact that she is from a different generation that has a lower tolerance level for certain behaviour. However, that doesn't give her the right to expect that everyone else should have to censor themselves around her, and quite frankly I don't know why they are and are pandering to her nonsense. If she doesn't like it, she can leave the room.

Finally, this whole 'she's a frail old vulnerable woman, we mustn't speak about her like that' is a load of patronising AGEIST (yes I said ageist) ****e too. In much the same way that any true feminist doesn't think that women shouldn't be allowed to express their sexuality, or that doors should be opened for them, or that they're a vulnerable homogenous group that must be protected at all costs (in other words the very antithesis of feminism) - so too must people realise that if you don't want ageism to be a thing, you cannot treat young and old people differently. If someone is being a ****, aged seven, seventeen or seventy - you are entitled to express that. One's age is no excuse. Either you own your behaviour or you don't. Either you're on an equal footing to everyone else or you're not. Putting older people on a pedestal as if they're delicate little flowers is so patronising it's unbelievable. Dare I say had Ann ****ing Widdecombe heard what Andrew had said, I'm pretty damn sure she'd have been able to handle herself. And rightly so.

[joeysteele]

Ann's a great housemate and tbh I may even want her to win, but the woman really is pathetic and a disgrace

Her thinly veiled homophobia is appalling, and I'm not surprised Andrew reacted as he did. At the start of last night's episode I thought 'hm the c word seems a little strong' but within the context of what she said to him I don't blame him at all, if someone brought my family into a scenario like that I'd be saying much the same if not worse. Who is she to insinuate that his mum and nan won't be proud of him for play fighting with another man? That's literally all they were doing, it wasn't a PDA at all :umm2:

By the way, the 'she's just a prude' stuff isn't much better an excuse either. I couldn't care less, she's in the ****ing Big Brother house not the Oval Office. Yes, she has every right to her opinion and I completely respect the fact that she is from a different generation that has a lower tolerance level for certain behaviour. However, that doesn't give her the right to expect that everyone else should have to censor themselves around her, and quite frankly I don't know why they are and are pandering to her nonsense. If she doesn't like it, she can leave the room.

Finally, this whole 'she's a frail old vulnerable woman, we mustn't speak about her like that' is a load of patronising AGEIST (yes I said ageist) ****e too. In much the same way that any true feminist doesn't think that women shouldn't be allowed to express their sexuality, or that doors should be opened for them, or that they're a vulnerable homogenous group that must be protected at all costs (in other words the very antithesis of feminism) - so too must people realise that if you don't want ageism to be a thing, you cannot treat young and old people differently. If someone is being a ****, aged seven, seventeen or seventy - you are entitled to express that. One's age is no excuse. Either you own your behaviour or you don't. Either you're on an equal footing to everyone else or you're not. Putting older people on a pedestal as if they're delicate little flowers is so patronising it's unbelievable. Dare I say had Ann ****ing Widdecombe heard what Andrew had said, I'm pretty damn sure she'd have been able to handle herself. And rightly so.



Awesome post.
Where have you been Jack_

This for me the post of the series.

[GiRTh]

Ann's a great housemate and tbh I may even want her to win, but the woman really is pathetic and a disgrace

Her thinly veiled homophobia is appalling, and I'm not surprised Andrew reacted as he did. At the start of last night's episode I thought 'hm the c word seems a little strong' but within the context of what she said to him I don't blame him at all, if someone brought my family into a scenario like that I'd be saying much the same if not worse. Who is she to insinuate that his mum and nan won't be proud of him for play fighting with another man? That's literally all they were doing, it wasn't a PDA at all :umm2:

By the way, the 'she's just a prude' stuff isn't much better an excuse either. I couldn't care less, she's in the ****ing Big Brother house not the Oval Office. Yes, she has every right to her opinion and I completely respect the fact that she is from a different generation that has a lower tolerance level for certain behaviour. However, that doesn't give her the right to expect that everyone else should have to censor themselves around her, and quite frankly I don't know why they are and are pandering to her nonsense. If she doesn't like it, she can leave the room.

Finally, this whole 'she's a frail old vulnerable woman, we mustn't speak about her like that' is a load of patronising AGEIST (yes I said ageist) ****e too. In much the same way that any true feminist doesn't think that women shouldn't be allowed to express their sexuality, or that doors should be opened for them, or that they're a vulnerable homogenous group that must be protected at all costs (in other words the very antithesis of feminism) - so too must people realise that if you don't want ageism to be a thing, you cannot treat young and old people differently. If someone is being a ****, aged seven, seventeen or seventy - you are entitled to express that. One's age is no excuse. Either you own your behaviour or you don't. Either you're on an equal footing to everyone else or you're not. Putting older people on a pedestal as if they're delicate little flowers is so patronising it's unbelievable. Dare I say had Ann ****ing Widdecombe heard what Andrew had said, I'm pretty damn sure she'd have been able to handle herself. And rightly so.:clap1:

[Robertocarlo]

Thats maybe because i vote for them, are you a clairvoyant ?

It was pretty obvious. Anyone with views like yours often tend to be UKIP voters. Oh well, never mind soon the Party will be dead in the water so who will you support next?!

[Ant.]

Thats maybe because i vote for them, are you a clairvoyant ?

:joker:

[poppsywoppsy]

Ann's a great housemate and tbh I may even want her to win, but the woman really is pathetic and a disgrace

Her thinly veiled homophobia is appalling, and I'm not surprised Andrew reacted as he did. At the start of last night's episode I thought 'hm the c word seems a little strong' but within the context of what she said to him I don't blame him at all, if someone brought my family into a scenario like that I'd be saying much the same if not worse. Who is she to insinuate that his mum and nan won't be proud of him for play fighting with another man? That's literally all they were doing, it wasn't a PDA at all :umm2:

By the way, the 'she's just a prude' stuff isn't much better an excuse either. I couldn't care less, she's in the ****ing Big Brother house not the Oval Office. Yes, she has every right to her opinion and I completely respect the fact that she is from a different generation that has a lower tolerance level for certain behaviour. However, that doesn't give her the right to expect that everyone else should have to censor themselves around her, and quite frankly I don't know why they are and are pandering to her nonsense. If she doesn't like it, she can leave the room.

Finally, this whole 'she's a frail old vulnerable woman, we mustn't speak about her like that' is a load of patronising AGEIST (yes I said ageist) ****e too. In much the same way that any true feminist doesn't think that women shouldn't be allowed to express their sexuality, or that doors should be opened for them, or that they're a vulnerable homogenous group that must be protected at all costs (in other words the very antithesis of feminism) - so too must people realise that if you don't want ageism to be a thing, you cannot treat young and old people differently. If someone is being a ****, aged seven, seventeen or seventy - you are entitled to express that. One's age is no excuse. Either you own your behaviour or you don't. Either you're on an equal footing to everyone else or you're not. Putting older people on a pedestal as if they're delicate little flowers is so patronising it's unbelievable. Dare I say had Ann ****ing Widdecombe heard what Andrew had said, I'm pretty damn sure she'd have been able to handle herself. And rightly so.

I have to disagree Jack

If you need to discuss something with an older person, it is not hard to put it in a polite manner to them. If they agree or disagree, discuss in a manner which is not patronizing towards them either. They will not take umbrage with this, what is so hard in not using profanities every other word unless your vocabulary is limited. Being young is no excuse either, everyone knows what is right or wrong.

People respond to how they are treated, all ages the same. Why you felt the need to call Ann ****ing Widdicombe when she has never sworn at anyone in the house or felt the need to because she can quite easily get her point across without using profanities, is not her problem but the person who is using it.

I am sick to the back teeth of all this homophobic nonsense being aimed at anyone who doesn't toe the Gay Cause line. I couldn't care less who sleeps with who, Gay, straight, men, women, whatever, whoever and their dog. What I do not want to see is blatant exhibitioning in front of the cameras for airtime between two people who only want to be famous and will only be famous for five minutes.

I am sure Ann didn't want to see it either and she is allowed to say so. Just the same as she removes herself from the room so others can enjoy themselves late at night. She did remove herself from the room every evening, so how is that her censoring others.

If the general public agreed with Andrew, he would still be there but he was booted out first. They have kept Ann in every time she was nominated against India, Maggie and she had the most votes.

Both Johnny and Daniel wanted her to win tonight, does that sound as if they had anything against her?

So it seems she is not the most hated, or she is the most boring but she is one of the most POPULAR persons in there at the moment, whether you like it or not.
Even with her views, even with her track record and even at her age.

Think on.

[Jack_]

Awesome post.
Where have you been Jack_

This for me the post of the series.

Thanks Joey! I've been a bit behind on the series - had to catch up on about ten episodes this week, still not fully back into the swing of on-season yet (and it's nearly over!). Life's been busy :laugh:

So it seems she is not the most hated, or she is the most boring but she is one of the most POPULAR persons in there at the moment, whether you like it or not.
Even with her views, even with her track record and even at her age.

Think on.

Once again another member of TiBB who doesn't properly read posts before they respond to them.

Literally, from the FIRST LINE OF MY POST:

Ann's a great housemate and tbh I may even want her to win, but the woman really is pathetic and a disgrace

Where did I say I found her boring? Or that I disliked the fact she's popular? :umm2:

READ POSTS BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO THEM

Now, on to the rest...

I have to disagree Jack

If you need to discuss something with an older person, it is not hard to put it in a polite manner to them. If they agree or disagree, discuss in a manner which is not patronizing towards them either. They will not take umbrage with this, what is so hard in not using profanities every other word unless your vocabulary is limited. Being young is no excuse either, everyone knows what is right or wrong.

You're literally patronising older people in this very paragraph? 'If you need to discuss something with an older person' ... 'they will not take umbrage with this'? With all due respect, people over the age of 70 aren't a bunch of delicate little flowers that need you to speak for them and tell them what they will and will not like - as if you know every older person on planet earth. And yes, I realise I may be saying this to someone this age (I don't know either way) but the point will still stand even if you are.

Anyway...I don't remember an occasion where a housemate has had a debate with Ann and hasn't been polite? Or one where they've patronised her? I seem to remember all of the debates and discussions with her (and others) being conducted in a rather civilised manner actually, and rightfully so. I'm a bit unsure as to what you're supposed to be referencing? My post was about Ann's nomination of Andrew - which, by the way - he didn't patronise or be impolite towards her at all during.

I'm afraid there's no such thing as 'right or wrong' either. The world isn't black and white. You may not like profanities, others may not mind them, others may love them - variety is the spice of life. There is no inherent natural law or Book of Life that says they must not be used in conversation, that is just something that you and some others believe which is of course fine but it doesn't make it a matter of 'right or wrong'.

The point at the end of my post was that in putting older people on a pedestal where they must be protected and respected at all costs - is in actual fact an example of ageism, against older people. It's patronising. In much the same way, if someone suggested a woman shouldn't ever pay a bill, or that women are a vulnerable homogenous group that must be protected by big strong men and that they aren't capable of doing certain things - that would be sexist. It doesn't matter if the intent is honourable, if you are Othering someone and making out that they aren't capable of defending themselves, it's pretty damn patronising. Especially when many of them are. Many women, many old people, many disabled people.

Just because someone is seventy is doesn't mean they aren't immune from being insulted, or insulting someone themselves. They are still human.

People respond to how they are treated, all ages the same. Why you felt the need to call Ann ****ing Widdicombe when she has never sworn at anyone in the house or felt the need to because she can quite easily get her point across without using profanities, is not her problem but the person who is using it.

The first line is correct, in fact this response to you is an exact example of that. I'm a firm believer of that mentality actually. But, again, I don't see what relevance this has to the purpose of my post which was about Andrew's reaction to Ann's nomination of him and the rest of the housemates' tendency to bend over backwards for her.

I called her 'Ann ****ing Widdecombe' in the context of a sentence where I was explaining how she isn't a walkover, and that she would have been more than capable of defending herself had Andrew insulted her to her face. The use of the f word was for effect, because it's ANN WIDDECOMBE. Her entire career shouldn't lend anyone to the notion that she is a frail old woman that couldn't hold her own, the very idea is laughable - hence why I emphasised her name. I'd have thought that would've been self-explanatory.

I don't have a problem. I wasn't swearing at Ann. Again, not sure what you're on about.

I am sick to the back teeth of all this homophobic nonsense being aimed at anyone who doesn't toe the Gay Cause line. I couldn't care less who sleeps with who, Gay, straight, men, women, whatever, whoever and their dog. What I do not want to see is blatant exhibitioning in front of the cameras for airtime between two people who only want to be famous and will only be famous for five minutes.

I am sure Ann didn't want to see it either and she is allowed to say so. Just the same as she removes herself from the room so others can enjoy themselves late at night. She did remove herself from the room every evening, so how is that her censoring others.

The Gay Cause line sounds good, how much a minute do they charge?

Now you see this is where I and a lot of others differ, I don't tend to believe that people in showmances - or even people who are friends on Big Brother - are playing up to the cameras deliberately. I'm not a cynic, I take things at face value, some showmances are entertaining, others are beyond dull (like Ashley and Ginuwine's) but that doesn't mean I don't believe them. I think it's perfectly possible to develop feelings for someone in an environment like that in a short space of time, so I don't tend to buy into the whole 'they're faking it' crap.

As for Andrew and Shane...is it really beyond the realms of possibility that they were just...erm...you know, having fun? People play fight sometimes. Two of my ex housemates used to, I know another two people that literally start punching each other as a greeting most times they see one another. I can imagine that in the Big Brother house, time passes very slowly and the downtime can get pretty boring - so play fighting (which is what they were doing, not some weird homoerotic sex act that Ann thinks Andrew's mum and nan will be ashamed of) seems an inevitability to me. What really is the problem?

Ann is allowed to say she doesn't like it. I didn't say she wasn't. In fact, AGAIN, I actually said the opposite :rolleyes:

Yes, she has every right to her opinion and I completely respect the fact that she is from a different generation that has a lower tolerance level for certain behaviour.

She does remove herself from the room, yes, and so she should. She's even allowed to nominate Andrew for it if she sees fit.

The actual issue here - the one I raised in my post - and the one that annoyed Andrew (of which I agree with), is her insinuating that his mother and grandmother wouldn't want to see him play fighting with another man/would be ashamed of it/wouldn't be proud of him for it. Once again, it wasn't a homoerotic sex act or public display of affection, it was play fighting. Now why would anyone's family be ashamed of their male relative for play fighting with another man? What an absurd and offensive notion, and he had every right to be annoyed by it - hence why I'm not surprised he spoke about her in the way he did. If someone had brought my family into it, I'd have said the same if not worse.

My confusion is also with the rest of the housemates pandering her sensitivities, and we all know this is the case because several of them have spoke about them feeling like they have to censor themselves around her. Her presence or dare I say intimidating nature is obviously strong because the same effect doesn't seem to happen around Amanda or Wayne. Again, it's perfectly fine for Ann to not like some of the conversations or behaviour, but if she doesn't like it she should remove herself from the room (as she sometimes does), the housemates shouldn't feel like they need to modify their behaviour. It's the Big Brother house, not the House of Commons.

If the general public agreed with Andrew, he would still be there but he was booted out first. They have kept Ann in every time she was nominated against India, Maggie and she had the most votes.

The public vote on BBUK is a barometer of nothing. Not of who's a good housemate, and certainly not of who's right and who's wrong.

Think on yourself.

[Yaki da]

It's a made up word with no objective meaning used to pathologise people who hold traditional moral positions. People who use it are bigots who prefer to diagnose those who they disagree with rather than debate them.

[Marsh.]

It's a made up word with no objective meaning used to pathologise people who hold traditional moral positions. People who use it are bigots who prefer to diagnose those who they disagree with rather than debate them.

Denying gay people equality is a "traditional moral position".

Of course it is. :pat:

"Tradition" is often used by the bigoted in a bad effort to explain away their discrimination.

[Yaki da]

Denying gay people equality is a "traditional moral position".


There was already equality. We all had the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

[poppsywoppsy]

Thanks Joey! I've been a bit behind on the series - had to catch up on about ten episodes this week, still not fully back into the swing of on-season yet (and it's nearly over!). Life's been busy :laugh:



Once again another member of TiBB who doesn't properly read posts before they respond to them.

Literally, from the FIRST LINE OF MY POST:



Where did I say I found her boring? Or that I disliked the fact she's popular? :umm2:

READ POSTS BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO THEM

Now, on to the rest...



You're literally patronising older people in this very paragraph? 'If you need to discuss somėething with an older person' ... 'they will not take umbrage with this'? With all due respect, people over the age of 70 aren't a bunch of delicate little flowers that need you to speak for them and tell them what they will and will not like - as if you know every older person on planet earth. And yes, I realise I may be saying this to someone this age (I don't know either way) but the point will still stand even if you are.

Anyway...I don't remember an occasion where a housemate has had a debate with Ann and hasn't been polite? Or one where they've patronised her? I seem to remember all of the debates and discussions with her (and others) being conducted in a rather civilised manner actually, and rightfully so. I'm a bit unsure as to what you're supposed to be referencing? My post was about Ann's nomination of Andrew - which, by the way - he didn't patronise or be impolite towards her at all during.

I'm afraid there's no such thing as 'right or wrong' either. The world isn't black and white. You may not like profanities, others may not mind them, others may love them - variety is the spice of life. There is no inherent natural law or Book of Life that says they must not be used in conversation, that is just something that you and some others believe which is of course fine but it doesn't make it a matter of 'right or wrong'.

The point at the end of my post was that in putting older people on a pedestal where they must be protected and respected at all costs - is in actual fact an example of ageism, against older people. It's patronising. In much the same way, if someone suggested a woman shouldn't ever pay a bill, or that women are a vulnerable homogenous group that must be protected by big strong men and that they aren't capable of doing certain things - that would be sexist. It doesn't matter if the intent is honourable, if you are Othering someone and making out that they aren't capable of defending themselves, it's pretty damn patronising. Especially when many of them are. Many women, many old people, many disabled people.

Just because someone is seventy is doesn't mean they aren't immune from being insulted, or insulting someone themselves. They are still human.



The first line is correct, in fact this response to you is an exact example of that. I'm a firm believer of that mentality actually. But, again, I don't see what relevance this has to the purpose of my post which was about Andrew's reaction to Ann's nomination of him and the rest of the housemates' tendency to bend over backwards for her.

I called her 'Ann ****ing Widdecombe' in the context of a sentence where I was explaining how she isn't a walkover, and that she would have been more than capable of defending herself had Andrew insulted her to her face. The use of the f word was for effect, because it's ANN WIDDECOMBE. Her entire career shouldn't lend anyone to the notion that she is a frail old woman that couldn't hold her own, the very idea is laughable - hence why I emphasised her name. I'd have thought that would've been self-explanatory.

I don't have a problem. I wasn't swearing at Ann. Again, not sure what you're on about.



The Gay Cause line sounds good, how much a minute do they charge?

Now you see this is where I and a lot of others differ, I don't tend to believe that people in showmances - or even people who are friends on Big Brother - are playing up to the cameras deliberately. I'm not a cynic, I take things at face value, some showmances are entertaining, others are beyond dull (like Ashley and Ginuwine's) but that doesn't mean I don't believe them. I think it's perfectly possible to develop feelings for someone in an environment like that in a short space of time, so I don't tend to buy into the whole 'they're faking it' crap.

As for Andrew and Shane...is it really beyond the realms of possibility that they were just...erm...you know, having fun? People play fight sometimes. Two of my ex housemates used to, I know another two people that literally start punching each other as a greeting most times they see one another. I can imagine that in the Big Brother house, time passes very slowly and the downtime can get pretty boring - so play fighting (which is what they were doing, not some weird homoerotic sex act that Ann thinks Andrew's mum and nan will be ashamed of) seems an inevitability to me. What really is the problem?

Ann is allowed to say she doesn't like it. I didn't say she wasn't. In fact, AGAIN, I actually said the opposite :rolleyes:



She does remove herself from the room, yes, and so she should. She's even allowed to nominate Andrew for it if she sees fit.

The actual issue here - the one I raised in my post - and the one that annoyed Andrew (of which I agree with), is her insinuating that his mother and grandmother wouldn't want to see him play fighting with another man/would be ashamed of it/wouldn't be proud of him for it. Once again, it wasn't a homoerotic sex act or public display of affection, it was play fighting. Now why would anyone's family be ashamed of their male relative for play fighting with another man? What an absurd and offensive notion, and he had every right to be annoyed by it - hence why I'm not surprised he spoke about her in the way he did. If someone had brought my family into it, I'd have said the same if not worse.

My confusion is also with the rest of the housemates pandering her sensitivities, and we all know this is the case because several of them have spoke about them feeling like they have to censor themselves around her. Her presence or dare I say intimidating nature is obviously strong because the same effect doesn't seem to happen around Amanda or Wayne. Again, it's perfectly fine for Ann to not like some of the conversations or behaviour, but if she doesn't like it she should remove herself from the room (as she sometimes does), the housemates shouldn't feel like they need to modify their behaviour. It's the Big Brother house, not the House of Commons.



The public vote on BBUK is a barometer of nothing. Not of who's a good housemate, and certainly not of who's right and who's wrong.

Think on yourself.


Oh dear, calm down, have I dared to disagree.

No need to shout.

You may know what you meant but it may not read the same way to others.

What is hard to understand in treating others how you wish to be treated yourself. This is not ageist or treating people in a specific way, it is just plain good manners. Calling a 70 year old woman Ann ******* Widdecome is not for effect, it is downright unecessary rudeness in any context.

In fact the whole tone of this post is rudeness, yet you seem to want to discuss in this manner because I totally disagree with so many of your points.

I do not agree it was merely play fighting. They both said they had become aroused. We did not see when Ann was called to the Diary room and passed those two, at that time it has been said they were imitatating sexual positions. They had been flirting for weeks, going into the toilets together, it may have started as play fighting but it became more as it went along. Ann said their behaviour was BEGINNING to cross the line and she wanted them to realise that their families were watching.

The fact Andrew apologized to his mother tonight was telling, that poor woman was mortified but tried to stand up for him under such awful circumstances, you had to feel sorry he had put her through it. I wonder where his father was?

The fact Ann might be able to handle any disgusting crass abuse hurled at her is an asinine excuse because she shouldn't have to. That is excusing the abuser when it is he that should be castigated, not her having to deal with it.

I cannot quite believe the naievity of saying you don't think they play up to the cameras, this is a well known ploy, even the housemates say it themselves. Have you not heard them?

I am sorry you don't believe in the voting public, they played a blinder tonight voting Andrew out first, didn't they? Mostly decent people who didn't like what they saw and heard and dumped him good and proper. He might have won if he had just had a modicum of decency and respect for himself and not his over riding arrogance in thinking he could get away with anything.

No need to be so aggressive, write in bold or be so annoyed. It is an alternative opinion, just like Ann has an alternative opinion to most in the house. Diversity makes the world go around and long may it do so. Agree nicely to disagree rather than call people profanities for effect. But, if you call me that ********** poppsywoppsy for disagreeing with you, I will report you:cheer2::cheer2: only joking for effect:cheer2::cheer2:

This insomnia has its plus points.

[Marsh.]

There was already equality. We all had the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex.
Your answers are exposing your bigotry or your very poor education.

What about those who wanted to marry members of the same sex? Has that always been equal when people like Ann sought to keep that inequality for no reason other than their own narrow minded judgement?

[Jack_]

Oh dear, calm down, have I dared to disagree.

No need to shout.

You may know what you meant but it may not read the same way to others.

Disagree all you like, but don't talk down to people. You tried to patronise me, so I responded in kind. I appreciate you may not know me as well as others do on here but that's the way I roll for future reference, I'd have been happy (and would've preferred) to have a civilised discussion with you but the minute you try to patronise me you'll be getting it back. Like you said (and I noted), treat people how you wish to be treated.

I'm not entirely sure how typing 'Ann's a great housemate and tbh I may even want her to win' in the first line of one's post can then be misconstrued by someone else as finding them boring and disliking the fact they're popular, but sure... :umm2:

What is hard to understand in treating others how you wish to be treated yourself.

I don't know, you tell me - you seem to have been confused by the tone of my response.

This is not ageist or treating people in a specific way, it is just plain good manners. Calling a 70 year old woman Ann ********** Widdecombe is not for effect, it is downright unecessary rudeness.

So not only do you try to tell me how all older people would prefer to converse (and how they'll 'not take umbrage' with this and with that), you're now telling me the intent of my own prose? Am I reading this correctly?

Let me just make this clear - I'm the one that gets to decide the intent of my use of profanity, not you. And do you know why? Because I'm the one that used it, funnily enough. Now let me explain again, but this time provide the context so we're absolutely crystal clear about its usage.

Putting older people on a pedestal as if they're delicate little flowers is so patronising it's unbelievable. Dare I say had Ann ****ing Widdecombe heard what Andrew had said, I'm pretty damn sure she'd have been able to handle herself. And rightly so.

In case you hadn't realised, in these three sentences, I was actually complimenting Ann. The point I was making - which is blindingly obvious to be quite frank - is that Ann Widdecombe has spent the best part of her life being a strong, independent, female politician with conviction. She is not and never has been a frail, vulnerable, sensitive, delicate little flower that needs protecting. In fact, I think the very insinuation would highly insult her, even at the grand old age of 70.

So, again, although I'm not sure why I'm bothering because you'll pretend you don't understand - the use of the f word was to emphasise her name. ANN. WIDDECOMBE. ANN WIDDECOMBE. Not a wallflower. Not a walkover. Not a frail old woman. Ann Widdecombe.

In fact the whole tone of this post is rudeness, yet you seem to want to discuss in this manner because I totally disagree with so many of your points.

Nope. Again, I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me - this is a forum after all. What I have a problem with is people attempting to patronise me, you tried it and so received it back. Remember that saying again? Treat others how you wish to be treated. Now, if you wish we can make the rest of this discussion civilised and productive - but that's on you, I follow your lead.

I do not agree it was merely play fighting. They both said they had become aroused.

I've just watched it back, because I didn't remember that and wanted to double check for myself. Unless you can hear or find something I haven't (and I'll be happy to admit that I was wrong) then that's incorrect:

OeXosvCLA2c

They are play fighting in that video. Nothing more, nothing less. You and others are only making it into more than what it is because of other instances of them flirting, but this one wasn't.

They had been flirting for weeks, going into the toilets together, it may have started as play fighting but it became more as it went along. Ann said their behaviour was BEGINNING to cross the line and she wanted them to realise that their families were watching.

Now again, unless I've misunderstood or missed the clip (and I'll be happy to be shown otherwise), Ann's nomination was about the incident I've just posted above - if I remember correctly they actually included it as a 'flashback' in the edit to give some context to what she was saying. If that is correct, I see nothing in that clip that is anywhere even NEAR a line, let alone 'beginning to cross it'. But again, that isn't my issue nor was it Andrew's - it was about the fact she said his mother and grandmother would be watching, i.e. an insinuation they wouldn't be happy/proud of or would be ashamed/embarrassed about his behaviour in that particular incident. That incident being - as I've just pointed out - play fighting. Two men. Play fighting. Could you please enlighten me as to what is so awful about that? So 'over the line' that his mother and grandmother wouldn't be happy? I think it's an offensive insinuation, so did Andrew, and his reaction was justified. Only bigoted relatives would have any issue with two men play fighting.

The fact Andrew apologized to his mother tonight was telling, that poor woman was mortified but tried to stand up for him under such awful circumstances, you had to feel sorry he had put her through it. I wonder where his father was?

Now that really is something you're going to have to watch back. Emma showed him a VT of him calling Ann a '****', he was embarrassed, and apologised to the audience and to his mother for what he had said in that instance. It was quite clear what he was apologising for and it wasn't for play fighting with Shane.

What does his father have to do with any of this? Don't tell me you're 'one of them'...deary me. Is a woman not capable of raising a child on her own? Is that what you're insinuating?

The fact Ann might be able to handle any disgusting crass abuse hurled at her is an asinine excuse because she shouldn't have to. That is excusing the abuser when it is he that should be castigated, not her having to deal with it.

Do you know what Andrew shouldn't have to deal with? Having his relatives brought into a nomination he received and having someone insinuate his mother and grandmother wouldn't be proud of him because he was play fighting with another man. Bring someone's family into a situation that doesn't involve them, and you face the consequences. I'll just point out at this junction that he never actually said it to her face either, so she never had to 'deal with it'.

Anyway, why shouldn't she have to deal with it if she's dishing it out? You've said on two or three occasions now that people should treat others how they wish to be treated, and I agree. Well guess what? That includes Ann Widdecombe. If she is prepared to insult others and bring their family into irrelevant situations, then she needs to be prepared to face the consequences. Being seventy years old is not an excuse or a get-out-of-jail-free card. And the idea that it should be is patronising to both Ann Widdecombe and other older people.

I cannot quite believe the naievity of saying you don't think they play up to the cameras, this is a well known ploy, even the housemates say it themselves. Have you not heard them?

I have heard them, yes, thank you. That doesn't mean they do, or are. So you basically believe that any and all showmances and friendships on Big Brother are fake and they're just playing up to the cameras? Or is it just people you dislike that you think this about? How very cynical of you. I didn't like Ashley or Ginuwine but that doesn't mean I think they just made the whole thing up for airtime.

I am sorry you don't believe in the voting public, they played a blinder tonight voting Andrew out first, didn't they? Mostly decent people who didn't like what they saw and heard and dumped him good and proper. He might have won if he had just had a modicum of decency and respect for himself and not his over riding arrogance in thinking he could get away with anything.

I'm sorry you do believe in them, to be honest. They routinely ruin the show and then complain that it's boring. You may believe they played a blinder but I'm afraid I think the producers made yet another clueless decision in allowing a triple eviction to occur with just four nominees (especially those ones), which enabled yet another clueless decision by the voting public...mind you it's not like they had much to work with so the blame rests with the producers on this one for me. Anyway, I digress...I like(d) both Ann and Andrew, and thought they complimented each other well, they brought the best (or worst, however you see it) out in each other and finally injected some life and intrigue into this series. It's those kind of dynamics that keep the show going, but I realise not everybody recognises that.

No need to be so aggressive, write in bold or be so annoyed. It is an alternative opinion, just like Ann has an alternative opinion to most in the house. Diversity makes the world go around and long may it do so. Agree nicely to disagree rather than call people profanities for effect. But, if you call me that ********** poppsywoppsy for disagreeing with you, I will report you:cheer2::cheer2: only joking for effect:cheer2::cheer2:

I never wrote in bold. I accept your alternative opinion. I accept Ann's right to an alternative opinion. I said variety is the spice of life in an earlier response to you. If you wished to agree nicely to disagree you should've thought about that in your first response to me. I don't care about threats of reports, this is an internet forum and I'm not a baby, I prefer to discuss things rather than run off to the mods...for effect :cheer2: :cheer2: :cheer2:

[Ammi]

...I tend to agree with Jack and what he’s said ..(..great to see you posting, Jack..:love:..)..’people respond to how they’re treated’ is very true...and that’s exactly what happened..:laugh:...Andrew responded to Ann questioning his mum’s ‘pride’ through any of his behaviour in the house and that is absolutely not there for her to question..it crossed a boundary for more ‘unacceptable’ than any terminology Andrew may have used in response...not that he maybe held her in much respect anyway, but with what she said it’s easy to see why he felt she merited no respect at all...and so yeah, he responded in the name calling...maybe not the best response, I agree..but at least that response was directed at and only ‘judging’ Ann...which is not what she did, she had assumed the speaking for his family or a family member, someone he obviously loves and whose opinion he would hold very dear...even if she had been a mother herself and had said...oh I’m just saying to try to say how that would make me feel..?....that would still be wrong and not for her to say what any other mum would find pride in or ‘shame’ in, in the way she did with Andrew...it’s kind of really one of the lowest of the lows...and for me, much worse behaviour than his reaction...I mean, no matter how much Ann may have annoyed in the house through anything she’s said or any of her actions etc...whatever the age or any other factor, no one in the house has ever said to her...oh, your friends would be ashamed of you or not very proud of you, so think on...the annoyance/disapproval Ann felt toward Andrew should have only ever been directed at Andrew and no mention of his family should have ever been...with the ‘older’ and ‘younger’ thing...Yeah Andrew’s reaction may have been more explosive/not that cool, calm, collected Ann..:laugh:...but what Ann said in her cruel assumption of judgement from his mum...showed really that ‘age’ itself and only that alone is not a factor in earning respect...

[Lissey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3h6es6zh1c

I always think of this clip when I see the word Homophobe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3h6es6zh1c

[Natawho]

TLDR

Do you want to be friends

[clairefromsomewhereinnort]

more important is why is she getting backed for it when there isn't a positive to it cos she s not encouraging conflict cos she holds people back most people daren t be open and show themselves open up to provide entertainment for show cos they daren t stand up against the bigot.

Its not just her bigotry either she s got a history of turning her head away from girls being abused in Rotherham when she was Shadow Home Secretary, of turning her Head away from Tory and Establishment Child Abusers and for not saying anything standing up to Tories deliberately attacking the genuinely disabled and mentally ill with them only not officially protecting the Mental Health department.

[GoldHeart]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3h6es6zh1c

I always think of this clip when I see the word Homophobe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3h6es6zh1c

There's a problem with the clip, its not played .

[Ammi]

There's a problem with the clip, its not played .

e3h6es6zh1c


...hopefully that might be it, GoldHeart...

[GoldHeart]

e3h6es6zh1c


...hopefully that might be it, GoldHeart...

OMG!! :joker: , best twist at the end ! . Made the stereotype idiot look embarrassing :hee: .

[Kazanne]

I have to disagree Jack

If you need to discuss something with an older person, it is not hard to put it in a polite manner to them. If they agree or disagree, discuss in a manner which is not patronizing towards them either. They will not take umbrage with this, what is so hard in not using profanities every other word unless your vocabulary is limited. Being young is no excuse either, everyone knows what is right or wrong.

People respond to how they are treated, all ages the same. Why you felt the need to call Ann ****ing Widdicombe when she has never sworn at anyone in the house or felt the need to because she can quite easily get her point across without using profanities, is not her problem but the person who is using it.

I am sick to the back teeth of all this homophobic nonsense being aimed at anyone who doesn't toe the Gay Cause line. I couldn't care less who sleeps with who, Gay, straight, men, women, whatever, whoever and their dog. What I do not want to see is blatant exhibitioning in front of the cameras for airtime between two people who only want to be famous and will only be famous for five minutes.

I am sure Ann didn't want to see it either and she is allowed to say so. Just the same as she removes herself from the room so others can enjoy themselves late at night. She did remove herself from the room every evening, so how is that her censoring others.

If the general public agreed with Andrew, he would still be there but he was booted out first. They have kept Ann in every time she was nominated against India, Maggie and she had the most votes.

Both Johnny and Daniel wanted her to win tonight, does that sound as if they had anything against her?

So it seems she is not the most hated, or she is the most boring but she is one of the most POPULAR persons in there at the moment, whether you like it or not.
Even with her views, even with her track record and even at her age.

Think on.

Great and accurate post poppsywoppy I don't know why people think it makes them look tough swearing like a trooper to get their point across,it just shows a lack of education and Andrew is definately uneducated

[Lissey]

e3h6es6zh1c


...hopefully that might be it, GoldHeart...

Thank you, yes that is it.
I couldn't get it to load properly.

[Lilac hills]

Are people still calling Ann a homophobe lmaoooo

[AnnieK]

...I tend to agree with Jack and what he’s said ..(..great to see you posting, Jack..:love:..)..’people respond to how they’re treated’ is very true...and that’s exactly what happened..:laugh:...Andrew responded to Ann questioning his mum’s ‘pride’ through any of his behaviour in the house and that is absolutely not there for her to question..it crossed a boundary for more ‘unacceptable’ than any terminology Andrew may have used in response...not that he maybe held her in much respect anyway, but with what she said it’s easy to see why he felt she merited no respect at all...and so yeah, he responded in the name calling...maybe not the best response, I agree..but at least that response was directed at and only ‘judging’ Ann...which is not what she did, she had assumed the speaking for his family or a family member, someone he obviously loves and whose opinion he would hold very dear...even if she had been a mother herself and had said...oh I’m just saying to try to say how that would make me feel..?....that would still be wrong and not for her to say what any other mum would find pride in or ‘shame’ in, in the way she did with Andrew...it’s kind of really one of the lowest of the lows...and for me, much worse behaviour than his reaction...I mean, no matter how much Ann may have annoyed in the house through anything she’s said or any of her actions etc...whatever the age or any other factor, no one in the house has ever said to her...oh, your friends would be ashamed of you or not very proud of you, so think on...the annoyance/disapproval Ann felt toward Andrew should have only ever been directed at Andrew and no mention of his family should have ever been...with the ‘older’ and ‘younger’ thing...Yeah Andrew’s reaction may have been more explosive/not that cool, calm, collected Ann..:laugh:...but what Ann said in her cruel assumption of judgement from his mum...showed really that ‘age’ itself and only that alone is not a factor in earning respect...

Don't 100% agree with this ammi. She didnt actually shame they woukd feel ashamed, she just said remember they are watching, it was andrew who later said Ann's family would and should feel ashamed of her. I agree however that family members should not be brought up, but Andrew's reaction was beyond extreme

[Ammi]

Don't 100% agree with this ammi. She didnt actually shame they woukd feel ashamed, she just said remember they are watching, it was andrew who later said Ann's family would and should feel ashamed of her. I agree however that family members should not be brought up, but Andrew's reaction was beyond extreme

...yeah Annie...that’s why I put ashamed in single quotations ..:laugh:..because it’s not what Ann actually said, more what she was inferring...that she felt his behaviour required a reminder to consider his family...

[jaxie]

Don't 100% agree with this ammi. She didnt actually shame they woukd feel ashamed, she just said remember they are watching, it was andrew who later said Ann's family would and should feel ashamed of her. I agree however that family members should not be brought up, but Andrew's reaction was beyond extreme

That's absolutely right, she just said they were watching. Andrew, as always went a step further, too far.

And Ann was right really as his mum's face looked pretty embarrassed during his interview last night when they showed the clips. Even Andrew looked embarrassed and immediately apologised.

[Robodog]

Are people still calling Ann a homophobe lmaoooo

Yes

Labelling someone is not an argument.

Some people don't have arguments: all they have are labels

The same old cheap, cliched, over-used labels - again and again.

Does get boring

[Marsh.]

Yes

Labelling someone is not an argument.

Some people don't have arguments: all they have are labels

The same old cheap, cliched, over-used labels - again and again.

Does get boring
It's been explained dozens of times.

Putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the argument doesn't make it disappear.

[Withano]

Yes

Labelling someone is not an argument.

Some people don't have arguments: all they have are labels

The same old cheap, cliched, over-used labels - again and again.

Does get boring

There were some excellent arguments behind that given label.

[smudgie]

That's absolutely right, she just said they were watching. Andrew, as always went a step further, too far.

And Ann was right really as his mum's face looked pretty embarrassed during his interview last night when they showed the clips. Even Andrew looked embarrassed and immediately apologised.

Spot on.
He never gave his family a thought when he was swearing and being nasty, maybe if he had taken on Ann’s words as a bit of advice then he wouldn’t have been booted out.
Glad he was mind.

[mr rochester]

If Andrews family have no problem about his behaviour with Shane that’s all well and good but I suspect the names he called Ann will have embarrassed them. A pity Andrew did not consider his family more. There are times when Andrew becomes a person only a mother could love. It might not do Andrew any harm to become slightly less bombastic and opinionated in general. Ann advising him to be more considerate of his family is not a homophobic retort. It is good solid advice that he might have done well to consider. She did not mention shame...he did!

[Alf]

It's been explained dozens of times.

Putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the argument doesn't make it disappear.Nobody has explaind how she has a phobia when she doesn't fear gay people.

I'm all ears

[Marsh.]

Nobody has explaind how she has a phobia when she doesn't fear gay people.

I'm all ears
Maybe you need to study the English language again instead of continuing to repeat that line as though it is at all funny?

Homophobia is a dislike or prejudice against homosexuals.

[Withano]

Nobody has explaind how she has a phobia when she doesn't fear gay people.

I'm all ears

The suffix of phobia most closely translates to 'an aversion to'. Nobody thinks she jumps on the table stomping her feet yelling help for straight people to safely escort her out of the area everytime she sees a gay person.

I cant tell if youre being serious or not, but your take on the word would explain the confusion that has been going on with the word recently. Hmm.

[Alf]

The suffix of phobia most closely translates to 'an aversion to'. Nobody thinks she jumps on the table stomping her feet yelling help for straight people to safely escort her out of the area everytime she sees a gay person.

I cant tell if youre being serious or not, but your take on the word would explain the confusion that has been going on with the word recently. Hmm.Deadly serious, I believe phobia is the wrong word to use.

[Marsh.]

The suffix of phobia most closely translates to 'an aversion to'. Nobody thinks she jumps on the table stomping her feet yelling help for straight people to safely escort her out of the area everytime she sees a gay person.

I cant tell if youre being serious or not, but your take on the word would explain the confusion that has been going on with the word recently. Hmm.
No confusion. They're just continuing to make a mockery out of serious topics they have no relation to.

[Lilac hills]

Ann is not prejudice against homosexuals

Shane is doing more harm to the lgbt community than Ann is

People will think relationships like Andrews and Shane’s are always fake and for attention

Also he thinks gender is a spectrum wtf

[Marsh.]

Ann is not prejudice against homosexuals

Shane is doing more harm to the lgbt community than Ann is

People will think relationships like Andrews and Shane’s are always fake and for attention

Also he thinks gender is a spectrum wtf
No. Voting against equality isn't prejudiced. :/

Also Andrew and Shane are not in a relationship.

[Withano]

Deadly serious, I believe phobia is the wrong word to use.

Well thats because you're thinking about its literal meaning as a word on its own, and not the origin of the suffix 'phobia'.

What youre doing is kinda the equivalent to keeping up a fuss about the word blackmail not having anything to do wih sending letters, or getting really angry about not being able to travel down the Thames on a friendship.

[Lilac hills]

No. Voting against equality isn't prejudiced. :/

Also Andrew and Shane are not in a relationship.

They’re not in a relationship, they had a relationship. It doesn’t mean dating

Also like sure you can prove in the most bare bones sense Ann is a ‘homophobe’ which I don’t necessarily agree with but whatever butters ur crumpet. But what does this prove about her and her character, her demeanour and such?

Why is this something Ann has ‘gotten away with’ like she’s avoided incarceration or smth

[Kazanne]

Maybe you need to study the English language again instead of continuing to repeat that line as though it is at all funny?

Homophobia is a dislike or prejudice against homosexuals.

So why are a lot of her friends gay and they love her:shrug:

[Kazanne]

As Rylan said on BBBOTS IF Ann had been deemed to have said anything wrong , BB would have pulled her up on it ,she hasn't.

[Marsh.]

They’re not in a relationship, they had a relationship. It doesn’t mean dating

Also like sure you can prove in the most bare bones sense Ann is a ‘homophobe’ which I don’t necessarily agree with but whatever butters ur crumpet. But what does this prove about her and her character, her demeanour and such?

Why is this something Ann has ‘gotten away with’ like she’s avoided incarceration or smth
The most bare bones?

Simply holding an opinion is the bare bones. Being in a position of power to contribute to attempting inequality with the laws of our land is beyond the bare bones. :joker:

[Marsh.]

So why are a lot of her friends gay and they love her:shrug:
I'm afraid I haven't met her friends.

Why don't you text them and find out.

[Kazanne]

I'm afraid I haven't met her friends.

Why don't you text them and find out.

Good diversion:smug:

[Brillopad]

She isn’t as she is just expressing her opinions- as she has every right to do. She isn’t trying to shove them down anyone’s throats - that’s the difference.

So are people just expected to say what others think they should say - or should they give their honest opinons expressed in a reasonable way. That would sound very much like a dictatorship to me.

[poppsywoppsy]

Disagree all you like, but don't talk down to people. You tried to patronise me, so I responded in kind. I appreciate you may not know me as well as others do on here but that's the way I roll for future reference, I'd have been happy (and would've preferred) to have a civilised discussion with you but the minute you try to patronise me you'll be getting it back. Like you said (and I noted), treat people how you wish to be treated.

I'm not entirely sure how typing 'Ann's a great housemate and tbh I may even want her to win' in the first line of one's post can then be misconstrued by someone else as finding them boring and disliking the fact they're popular, but sure... :umm2:



I don't know, you tell me - you seem to have been confused by the tone of my response.



So not only do you try to tell me how all older people would prefer to converse (and how they'll 'not take umbrage' with this and with that), you're now telling me the intent of my own prose? Am I reading this correctly?

Let me just make this clear - I'm the one that gets to decide the intent of my use of profanity, not you. And do you know why? Because I'm the one that used it, funnily enough. Now let me explain again, but this time provide the context so we're absolutely crystal clear about its usage.



In case you hadn't realised, in these three sentences, I was actually complimenting Ann. The point I was making - which is blindingly obvious to be quite frank - is that Ann Widdecombe has spent the best part of her life being a strong, independent, female politician with conviction. She is not and never has been a frail, vulnerable, sensitive, delicate little flower that needs protecting. In fact, I think the very insinuation would highly insult her, even at the grand old age of 70.

So, again, although I'm not sure why I'm bothering because you'll pretend you don't understand - the use of the f word was to emphasise her name. ANN. WIDDECOMBE. ANN WIDDECOMBE. Not a wallflower. Not a walkover. Not a frail old woman. Ann Widdecombe.



Nope. Again, I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me - this is a forum after all. What I have a problem with is people attempting to patronise me, you tried it and so received it back. Remember that saying again? Treat others how you wish to be treated. Now, if you wish we can make the rest of this discussion civilised and productive - but that's on you, I follow your lead.



I've just watched it back, because I didn't remember that and wanted to double check for myself. Unless you can hear or find something I haven't (and I'll be happy to admit that I was wrong) then that's incorrect:

OeXosvCLA2c

They are play fighting in that video. Nothing more, nothing less. You and others are only making it into more than what it is because of other instances of them flirting, but this one wasn't.



Now again, unless I've misunderstood or missed the clip (and I'll be happy to be shown otherwise), Ann's nomination was about the incident I've just posted above - if I remember correctly they actually included it as a 'flashback' in the edit to give some context to what she was saying. If that is correct, I see nothing in that clip that is anywhere even NEAR a line, let alone 'beginning to cross it'. But again, that isn't my issue nor was it Andrew's - it was about the fact she said his mother and grandmother would be watching, i.e. an insinuation they wouldn't be happy/proud of or would be ashamed/embarrassed about his behaviour in that particular incident. That incident being - as I've just pointed out - play fighting. Two men. Play fighting. Could you please enlighten me as to what is so awful about that? So 'over the line' that his mother and grandmother wouldn't be happy? I think it's an offensive insinuation, so did Andrew, and his reaction was justified. Only bigoted relatives would have any issue with two men play fighting.



Now that really is something you're going to have to watch back. Emma showed him a VT of him calling Ann a '****', he was embarrassed, and apologised to the audience and to his mother for what he had said in that instance. It was quite clear what he was apologising for and it wasn't for play fighting with Shane.

What does his father have to do with any of this? Don't tell me you're 'one of them'...deary me. Is a woman not capable of raising a child on her own? Is that what you're insinuating?



Do you know what Andrew shouldn't have to deal with? Having his relatives brought into a nomination he received and having someone insinuate his mother and grandmother wouldn't be proud of him because he was play fighting with another man. Bring someone's family into a situation that doesn't involve them, and you face the consequences. I'll just point out at this junction that he never actually said it to her face either, so she never had to 'deal with it'.

Anyway, why shouldn't she have to deal with it if she's dishing it out? You've said on two or three occasions now that people should treat others how they wish to be treated, and I agree. Well guess what? That includes Ann Widdecombe. If she is prepared to insult others and bring their family into irrelevant situations, then she needs to be prepared to face the consequences. Being seventy years old is not an excuse or a get-out-of-jail-free card. And the idea that it should be is patronising to both Ann Widdecombe and other older people.



I have heard them, yes, thank you. That doesn't mean they do, or are. So you basically believe that any and all showmances and friendships on Big Brother are fake and they're just playing up to the cameras? Or is it just people you dislike that you think this about? How very cynical of you. I didn't like Ashley or Ginuwine but that doesn't mean I think they just made the whole thing up for airtime.



I'm sorry you do believe in them, to be honest. They routinely ruin the show and then complain that it's boring. You may believe they played a blinder but I'm afraid I think the producers made yet another clueless decision in allowing a triple eviction to occur with just four nominees (especially those ones), which enabled yet another clueless decision by the voting public...mind you it's not like they had much to work with so the blame rests with the producers on this one for me. Anyway, I digress...I like(d) both Ann and Andrew, and thought they complimented each other well, they brought the best (or worst, however you see it) out in each other and finally injected some life and intrigue into this series. It's those kind of dynamics that keep the show going, but I realise not everybody recognises that.



I never wrote in bold. I accept your alternative opinion. I accept Ann's right to an alternative opinion. I said variety is the spice of life in an earlier response to you. If you wished to agree nicely to disagree you should've thought about that in your first response to me. I don't care about threats of reports, this is an internet forum and I'm not a baby, I prefer to discuss things rather than run off to the mods...for effect :cheer2: :cheer2: :cheer2:


My word, over analyse, much?..


If you find someone disagreeing with you patronizing, well not my problem. I disagree with others and they do not respond like you so perhaps less sensitivity might help.

I, have short shrift with such stuff and a forum is not the place to mind others having different views, I have no problem with your platitudes or provocations where none are called for.

Back to the relevant point.

I asked where his Dad was because he wasn't there. Try not reading and surmising when it was a straightforward comment. I do think Andrew could benefit from a Fathers wisdom but am unaware of his family situation and asked where he was, nothing more or less.

Your huge font was shouting and unecessary, just letting you know.

I will give other poster a break from your reams of postings by letting you post to your hearts content by agreeing with yourself. I gave up after the first few lines and speedread until I fell asleep. A good cure for my insomnia, thank you very much.

Happily moving on, good luck:joker::shrug:

[Lilac hills]

The most bare bones?

Simply holding an opinion is the bare bones. Being in a position of power to contribute to attempting inequality with the laws of our land is beyond the bare bones. :joker:

Do you think Ann had any malice in what she meant when she voted against gay marriage? She’s going off a technicality, in which would make her seem like in the most bare bones way she’s homophobic but it’s hardly something to incriminate her for

I could probably articulate the idea that ginuwine, for not wanting to date India, is transphobic(for the sake of this debate btw I don’t actually think he is). What good will come for putting that label on him, and what does it prove? Do you think ginuwine is a malicious person that wants to kill all trans people?

And India was panned and hated for having this mentality

Ann’s views are outdated, but it’s hardly something that should create this much ruckus, nor should it be an attack on her demeanour.

[Marsh.]

Good diversion:smug:
It's not a diversion. It's a silly retort to a silly question. How am I supposed to know why she's friends with her friends?

You might as well ask me to read her mind

[Marsh.]

She isn’t as she is just expressing her opinions- as she has every right to do. She isn’t trying to shove them down anyone’s throats - that’s the difference.

So are people just expected to say what others think they should say - or should they give their honest opinons expressed in a reasonable way. That would sound very much like a dictatorship to me.
You don't have to shove your opinion down other people's throats to be bigoted.

I would argue her contribution to votes is bordering on forcing that opinion on others as she strongly feels out laws should reflect her feeling on the matter.

[Marsh.]

Do you think Ann had any malice in what she meant when she voted against gay marriage? She’s going off a technicality, in which would make her seem like in the most bare bones way she’s homophobic but it’s hardly something to incriminate her for

I could probably articulate the idea that ginuwine, for not wanting to date India, is transphobic(for the sake of this debate btw I don’t actually think he is). What good will come for putting that label on him, and what does it prove? Do you think ginuwine is a malicious person that wants to kill all trans people?

And India was panned and hated for having this mentality

Ann’s views are outdated, but it’s hardly something that should create this much ruckus, nor should it be an attack on her demeanour.
Ginuwine not wanting to date India isn't insisting that India should not be afforded equal rights in society so I'm not sure what this silly comparison is supposed to achieve.

I couldn't care less about an old lady who feels a bit queasy because of two men getting intimate. I will call her out when she so clearly thinks they are not entitled to equal rights as herself and every other heterosexual as though they are worth any less than her and her 'superior' sexuality.

[Lilac hills]

Ginuwine not wanting to date India isn't insisting that India should not be afforded equal rights in society so I'm not sure what this silly comparison is supposed to achieve.

I couldn't care less about an old lady who feels a bit queasy because of two men getting intimate. I will call her out when she so clearly thinks they are not entitled to equal rights as herself and every other heterosexual as though they are worth any less than her and her 'superior' sexuality.

He’s denying her of her dating rights, as a lot of people feel the same way as ginuwine.

And what does calling her out on something so minor really achieve

[joeysteele]

Denying gay people equality is a "traditional moral position".

Of course it is. :pat:

"Tradition" is often used by the bigoted in a bad effort to explain away their discrimination.

That last statement is spot on.

Something has always been a certain way so. Should never be changed.

That is Ann's way as to lgbt rights all through.
She also hides behind religion,again until it doesn't suit her her more rigid agenda.
The Church of England which she was in, its synod democratically voted to ordain Women as Priests.

Ann does not agree Women can be or should be Priests so discounts that vote and heads off into the Roman Catholic religion where her rigid line is still in place,no women Priests.
She will not budge or compromise on equality rights.

Voting against equality rights,is leaving people without equal status and rights.
What is odd to me with religion and many say religious belief is superstition and nonsense.

Christianity,is following the teaching of Jesus. Just take the 4 gospels,(supposedly meaning truth),which account for his words and teaching.

Nowhere does any condemnation of homosexuality appear from all attributed to him.
So how Christianity can hold prejudices towards lgbt people is beyond me.
Yet Ann does.
Religion appears to suit when used to judge others and deny their needs,hopes and feelings.

This is why I think organised religion a mess and indeed harmful more than upbuilding.
This is another post that will likely be ridiculed but other times,religion as a base for prejudice and denial of rights gets derided,when it suits.

Again however,tradition as you state,is another selective barrier to allowing inequality and unequal rights to remain so.

[Marsh.]

He’s denying her of her dating rights, as a lot of people feel the same way as ginuwine.

And what does calling her out on something so minor really achieve
India doesn't have any "rights" to date Ginuwine.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Minor? I don't think it would be minor if she'd spent a good portion of her career trying to stifle your rights as a human being.

[poppsywoppsy]

That last statement is spot on.

Something has always been a certain way so. Should never be changed.

That is Ann's way as to lgbt rights all through.
She also hides behind religion,again until it doesn't suit her her more rigid agenda.
The Church of England which she was in, its synod democratically voted to ordain Women as Priests.

Ann does not agree Women can be or should be Priests so discounts that vote and heads off into the Roman Catholic religion where her rigid line is still in place,no women Priests.
She will not budge or compromise on equality rights.

Voting against equality rights,is leaving people without equal status and rights.
What is odd to me with religion and many say religious belief is superstition and nonsense.

Christianity,is following the teaching of Jesus. Just take the 4 gospels,(supposedly meaning truth),which account for his words and teaching.

Nowhere does any condemnation of homosexuality appear from all attributed to him.
So how Christianity can hold prejudices towards lgbt people is beyond me.
Yet Ann does.
Religion appears to suit when used to judge others and deny their needs,hopes and feelings.

This is why I think organised religion a mess and indeed harmful more than upbuilding.
This is another post that will likely be ridiculed but other times,religion as a base for prejudice and denial of rights gets derided,when it suits.

Again however,tradition as you state,is another selective barrier to allowing inequality and unequal rights to remain so.


Can it not be that people have the right to be Gay and lead their lives as they see fit

Others have the right to their own view and to do the same

[Marsh.]

Can it not be that people have the right to be Gay and lead their lives as they see fit

Others have the right to their own view and to do the same
People can live their own lives the way they see fit.

The minute they believe other people should have certain avenues closed to them or not be afforded the same opportunities because of a difference such as sexuality or race or gender or age then it becomes discrimination.

Do you see the difference?

[poppsywoppsy]

People can live their own lives the way they see fit.

The minute they believe other people should have certain avenues closed to them or not be afforded the same opportunities because of a difference such as sexuality or race or gender or age then it becomes discrimination.

Do you see the difference?

She is entitled to her views, you are not the thought police.

She legally voted in Parliament on a subject which went against her conscience.

She lost, she has accepted it, why can't you.

[Robertocarlo]

That last statement is spot on.

Something has always been a certain way so. Should never be changed.

That is Ann's way as to lgbt rights all through.
She also hides behind religion,again until it doesn't suit her her more rigid agenda.
The Church of England which she was in, its synod democratically voted to ordain Women as Priests.

Ann does not agree Women can be or should be Priests so discounts that vote and heads off into the Roman Catholic religion where her rigid line is still in place,no women Priests.
She will not budge or compromise on equality rights.

Voting against equality rights,is leaving people without equal status and rights.
What is odd to me with religion and many say religious belief is superstition and nonsense.

Christianity,is following the teaching of Jesus. Just take the 4 gospels,(supposedly meaning truth),which account for his words and teaching.

Nowhere does any condemnation of homosexuality appear from all attributed to him.
So how Christianity can hold prejudices towards lgbt people is beyond me.
Yet Ann does.
Religion appears to suit when used to judge others and deny their needs,hopes and feelings.

This is why I think organised religion a mess and indeed harmful more than upbuilding.
This is another post that will likely be ridiculed but other times,religion as a base for prejudice and denial of rights gets derided,when it suits.

Again however,tradition as you state,is another selective barrier to allowing inequality and unequal rights to remain so.

You are spot on Joeysteele. People like Ann do hide behind religion to justify their bigotry and homophobia. It's not just Ann it's many so called 'religious' individuals.

In Ann's case she used her power as an MP to try to deny LGBT people like myself equal rights. I am not after 'special' rights but 'equal' rights. Thank goodness the majority of MPs were more enlightened and voted for equality.

Ann can try to justify her bigotry and loathing of LGBT people all she likes. Using her supposed 'faith' to justify it. But she is a bigot and she is a homophobe.

I have looked at the play fight incident between Andrew and Shane L again and there was no sexual touching or anything 'queer' about it. It was just a play fight between two adult men - one Gay one Straight. But to Ann's mind the fight had to be sexual and therefore used that to justify her nomination?! That's the issue here.

If two of the girls had done the same, play fight that is, do you really think Ann would have seen it as disgusting in the same way she saw the fight between Andrew and Shane? Of course she wouldn't have because the younger women in the house identify as 'straight'. The issue with Andrew and Shane was because one of the men was Gay therefore disgusting! Bigotry and homophobia pure and simple.

[Robertocarlo]

People can live their own lives the way they see fit.

The minute they believe other people should have certain avenues closed to them or not be afforded the same opportunities because of a difference such as sexuality or race or gender or age then it becomes discrimination.

Do you see the difference?

Thank you for this because I was about to say much the same.

[Marsh.]

She is entitled to her views, you are not the thought police.

She legally voted in Parliament on a subject which went against her conscience.

She lost, she has accepted it, why can't you.
I have accepted it. We're having a discussion on a discussion forum. You do comprehend what that is do you Not?

Thought police? What are you blathering about now? No one sought to control her thoughts.

When those thoughts become publicly broadcast opinions and become actions in her role in parliament then it becomes a subject for us all to comment on.

She is bigoted against LGBT people and doesn't believe they deserve equality. Fact.

She's entitled to that opinion. But you can't blindingly retort that it isn't homophobic. It is.

[poppsywoppsy]

You are spot on Joeysteele. People like Ann do hide behind religion to justify their bigotry and homophobia. It's not just Ann it's many so called 'religious' individuals.

In Ann's case she used her power as an MP to try to deny LGBT people like myself equal rights. I am not after 'special' rights but 'equal' rights. Thank goodness the majority of MPs were more enlightened and voted for equality.

Ann can try to justify her bigotry and loathing of LGBT people all she likes. Using her supposed 'faith' to justify it. But she is a bigot and she is a homophobe.

I have looked at the play fight incident between Andrew and Shane L again and there was no sexual touching or anything 'queer' about it. It was just a play fight between two adult men - one Gay one Straight. But to Ann's mind the fight had to be sexual and therefore used that to justify her nomination?!

So what about all the other people who disagreed with this bill, she didn't do it on her own now did she. You are apportioning all the blame on her shoulders.

You cannot tell others how to vote in Parliament, her constituents could and would have done.

You also could not see when Ann was called to the Diary room and passed Shane and Andrew in their so called playfight which THEY said they were aroused. Missed that out. You only saw a short clip.There are differing opinions about this but Ann hasn't shown herself to be untruthful.

[Cherie]

Bigot has got a good airing in this thread, at least it's giving racism a much needed duvet day

[Cherie]

So what about all the other people who disagreed with this bill, she didn't do it on her own now did she. You are apportioning all the blame on her shoulders.

You cannot tell others how to vote in Parliament, her constituents could and would have done.

You also could not see when Ann was called to the Diary room and passed Shane and Andrew in their so called playfight which THEY said they were aroused. Missed that out. You only saw a short clip.There are differing opinions about this but Ann hasn't shown herself to be untruthful.

Don't forget she is also responsible for Rochdale

[poppsywoppsy]

I have accepted it. We're having a discussion on a discussion forum. You do comprehend what that is do you Not?

Thought police? What are you blathering about now? No one sought to control her thoughts.

When those thoughts become publicly broadcast opinions and become actions in her role in parliament then it becomes a subject for us all to comment on.

She is bigoted against LGBT people and doesn't believe they deserve equality. Fact.

She's entitled to that opinion. But you can't blindingly retort that it isn't homophobic. It is.


According to you, she is wrong, did wrong and needs to stop being as she is.

She is as entitled to her views, as this is a democracy, not a dictatorship where everyone must bow down to what you think.

[Lilac hills]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/4ba36a644d14141ac607538122b46e93/tenor.gif?itemid=5053712

Trying to prove Ann is a homophobe is such a trivial pursuit. She lost the vote she didn’t agree on so her allegedly homophobic views didn’t count for sh!t so liek who cares

[chuff me dizzy]

They’re not in a relationship, they had a relationship. It doesn’t mean dating

Also like sure you can prove in the most bare bones sense Ann is a ‘homophobe’ which I don’t necessarily agree with but whatever butters ur crumpet. But what does this prove about her and her character, her demeanour and such?

Why is this something Ann has ‘gotten away with’ like she’s avoided incarceration or smth

They have both called it a relationship

[Vicky.]

Bigot has got a good airing in this thread, at least it's giving racism a much needed duvet day

Its been a refreshing change to not have endless accusations of racism this series actually.

I think its quite clear Ann has some homophobic views. I don't really think age is an excuse but I can see why others think it is. I did used to excuse my grandads homophobia as being gay was actually illegal for most of his life and I don't think its possible to just change your views as soon as the law changes. It was odd as my grandad was clearly homophobic but he got on brilliantly with my gay friends. He was so stereotypical in his thinking too..like, before he met any of them he thought all gay people were really camp and such.

I didn't mean to make this about my grandad. But yeah, I do think Ann has some homophobic views, but I don't know is she is actually homophobic, if that makes sense? It probably doesn't the way I am explaining it but I know what I mean :laugh:

[bitontheslide]

ann is not a homophobe. She has not persecuted any homosexual people in the house, excluded them, isolated them or tried to treat them differently from anyone else in the house. There is zero evidence of her persecuting anyone.

When people attribute a difference of opinion to some sort of hate or persecution they are diluting the cases where it genuinely exists and reducing the chances of real homophobia being treated seriously

[poppsywoppsy]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/4ba36a644d14141ac607538122b46e93/tenor.gif?itemid=5053712

Trying to prove Ann is a homophobe is such a trivial pursuit. She lost the vote she didn’t agree on so her allegedly homophobic views didn’t count for sh!t so liek who cares

So true.

How many moons ago was it but let's get the big stick out to hit her with, time and time again.

[chuff me dizzy]

According to you, she is wrong, did wrong and needs to stop being as she is.

She is as entitled to her views, as this is a democracy, not a dictatorship where everyone must bow down to what you think.

:clap1: Hear Hear !!

[Vanessa]

She's clearly homophobic. She has similar views in homosexuality that my parents used to have.

[Withano]

She is as entitled to her views, as this is a democracy, not a dictatorship where everyone must bow down to what you think.

You seem completely unwilling to accept any view along the line of 'I think Ann is homophobic'. I dont think youve really thought this through.

[Marsh.]

According to you, she is wrong, did wrong and needs to stop being as she is.

She is as entitled to her views, as this is a democracy, not a dictatorship where everyone must bow down to what you think.
Where did I say she needs to be stopped?

I'm pointing out the obvious to those few still laughably claiming she's not homophobic because she's chummy with Amanda Barrie in Celebrity Big Brother.

[Marsh.]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/4ba36a644d14141ac607538122b46e93/tenor.gif?itemid=5053712

Trying to prove Ann is a homophobe is such a trivial pursuit. She lost the vote she didn’t agree on so her allegedly homophobic views didn’t count for sh!t so liek who cares
Her homophobic view not being voted into parliament doesn't mean she is no longer homophobic.

But you just successfully called out her homophobia regardless so, progress at last.

[Cherie]

Its been a refreshing change to not have endless accusations of racism this series actually.

I think its quite clear Ann has some homophobic views. I don't really think age is an excuse but I can see why others think it is. I did used to excuse my grandads homophobia as being gay was actually illegal for most of his life and I don't think its possible to just change your views as soon as the law changes. It was odd as my grandad was clearly homophobic but he got on brilliantly with my gay friends. He was so stereotypical in his thinking too..like, before he met any of them he thought all gay people were really camp and such.

I didn't mean to make this about my grandad. But yeah, I do think Ann has some homophobic views, but I don't know is she is actually homophobic, if that makes sense? It probably doesn't the way I am explaining it but I know what I mean :laugh:

I would say that is a fair summation

[poppsywoppsy]

Its been a refreshing change to not have endless accusations of racism this series actually.

I think its quite clear Ann has some homophobic views. I don't really think age is an excuse but I can see why others think it is. I did used to excuse my grandads homophobia as being gay was actually illegal for most of his life and I don't think its possible to just change your views as soon as the law changes. It was odd as my grandad was clearly homophobic but he got on brilliantly with my gay friends. He was so stereotypical in his thinking too..like, before he met any of them he thought all gay people were really camp and such.

I didn't mean to make this about my grandad. But yeah, I do think Ann has some homophobic views, but I don't know is she is actually homophobic, if that makes sense? It probably doesn't the way I am explaining it but I know what I mean :laugh:


Good post.

All she has really said is that she doesn't agree with it and the sanctity of marriage within the church is between a man and a woman in her opinion.

She has not gone into the vile rants of many of the opposite views who if they said it towards Gay people would be far worse than anything she has ever said.

They do the Gay community no help by being so vociferous in their language and insults towards a lady who has not said anything like the nastiness thrown her way.

[Robertocarlo]

So what about all the other people who disagreed with this bill, she didn't do it on her own now did she. You are apportioning all the blame on her shoulders.

You cannot tell others how to vote in Parliament, her constituents could and would have done.

You also could not see when Ann was called to the Diary room and passed Shane and Andrew in their so called playfight which THEY said they were aroused. Missed that out. You only saw a short clip.There are differing opinions about this but Ann hasn't shown herself to be untruthful.

Goodness me you are hard work Popsywoppsy. Of course I am aware that Ann wasn't the only Tory MP to vote against Equal Marriage - I watched the debates on TV and on line. I could add MPs like Philip Hollobone, Peter Bone and Jacob Reec-Mogg in the mix too.

In no way am I or anyone else putting the blame on Ann's shoulders but as she's in the BBH and the other MPs are not of course we are commenting on Ann?! How do you know what Ann's constituents felt about equal marriage? I can tell you that the majority of the UK population are in favour by about 70%! Thus, I am sure most of Ann's constituents would have been in favour yet Ann ignored that and voted against because of her bigoted and homophobic beliefs - supported by her supposed Catholic 'faith'.

Indeed, Ann continues to use her power, as with the nomination of Andrew, to push her bigoted and homophobic agenda.

As for the play-fight, so what if they got aroused? What's the problem? Only a homophobe would object. Besides did you actually see their 'arousal' through their clothing? Because I didn't?!

[Marsh.]

ann is not a homophobe. She has not persecuted any homosexual people in the house, excluded them, isolated them or tried to treat them differently from anyone else in the house. There is zero evidence of her persecuting anyone.

When people attribute a difference of opinion to some sort of hate or persecution they are diluting the cases where it genuinely exists and reducing the chances of real homophobia being treated seriously
People need to act on their homophobia to be homophobic? (Although one could argue her work as a politician more than acted on it).

People need to act upon their racist opinions in order to be racist too?

[Marsh.]

So what about all the other people who disagreed with this bill, she didn't do it on her own now did she. You are apportioning all the blame on her shoulders.

You cannot tell others how to vote in Parliament, her constituents could and would have done.

You also could not see when Ann was called to the Diary room and passed Shane and Andrew in their so called playfight which THEY said they were aroused. Missed that out. You only saw a short clip.There are differing opinions about this but Ann hasn't shown herself to be untruthful.
Nobody's forcing anyone to vote anyway.

They're explaining how those votes are bigoted.

Never fails to astound me on this forum how basic facts get ignored.

[Marsh.]

Good post.

All she has really said is that she doesn't agree with it and the sanctity of marriage within the church is between a man and a woman in her opinion.

She has not gone into the vile rants of many of the opposite views who if they said it towards Gay people would be far worse than anything she has ever said.

They do the Gay community no help by being so vociferous in their language and insults towards a lady who has not said anything like the nastiness thrown her way.
She doesn't need to go into vile rants.

She doesn't believe they are deserving of equal rights. That is discrimination.

Funny how calling out her homophobia is labelled as "vociferous insults" but the homophobia itself people need to "get over it". Ok.

[Kazanne]

ann is not a homophobe. She has not persecuted any homosexual people in the house, excluded them, isolated them or tried to treat them differently from anyone else in the house. There is zero evidence of her persecuting anyone.

When people attribute a difference of opinion to some sort of hate or persecution they are diluting the cases where it genuinely exists and reducing the chances of real homophobia being treated seriously

100% true:wavey:

[joeysteele]

Can it not be that people have the right to be Gay and lead their lives as they see fit

Others have the right to their own view and to do the same

Yes,but under the law as it stood gay people had not the equal rights to do so.

Hence why both Labour and Con govts.brought in bills for to ensure equal rights,and scrap clauses that discriminated against said gay communities.

Ann Widdecombe voted against every change to giving equal rights to lgbt people, thereby deliberately denying them the chance to live their lives as they wish to,equal under the law.

[Marsh.]

"Difference of opinion"

:joker: listen to yourselves.

I suppose a racist is simply a difference of opinion too?

[poppsywoppsy]

She doesn't need to go into vile rants.

She doesn't believe they are deserving of equal rights. That is discrimination.

Funny how calling out her homophobia is labelled as "vociferous insults" but the homophobia itself people need to "get over it". Ok.

No, she leaves that to Andrew

She can be and think as she wants, it is her right

You cannot dictate what and how she thinks

[Marsh.]

No, she leaves that to Andrew

She can be and think as she wants, it is her right

You cannot dictate what and how she thinks
I'm not dictating how she thinks and acts. :umm2:

I'm illustrating how the way she thinks and acts is homophobic.

How does one miss that?

It's like talking to a wall.

[Brillopad]

That last statement is spot on.

Something has always been a certain way so. Should never be changed.

That is Ann's way as to lgbt rights all through.
She also hides behind religion,again until it doesn't suit her her more rigid agenda.
The Church of England which she was in, its synod democratically voted to ordain Women as Priests.

Ann does not agree Women can be or should be Priests so discounts that vote and heads off into the Roman Catholic religion where her rigid line is still in place,no women Priests.
She will not budge or compromise on equality rights.

Voting against equality rights,is leaving people without equal status and rights.
What is odd to me with religion and many say religious belief is superstition and nonsense.

Christianity,is following the teaching of Jesus. Just take the 4 gospels,(supposedly meaning truth),which account for his words and teaching.

Nowhere does any condemnation of homosexuality appear from all attributed to him.
So how Christianity can hold prejudices towards lgbt people is beyond me.
Yet Ann does.
Religion appears to suit when used to judge others and deny their needs,hopes and feelings.

This is why I think organised religion a mess and indeed harmful more than upbuilding.
This is another post that will likely be ridiculed but other times,religion as a base for prejudice and denial of rights gets derided,when it suits.

Again however,tradition as you state,is another selective barrier to allowing inequality and unequal rights to remain so.

I don’t agree with Ann on many things such as women not being allowed to be priests but she has the right to express that opinion - I might disagree but I don’t want to shut her down for it. If she can’t express that opinion then her rights would be being denied.

What many don’t seem to understand that yes we all have rights, but sometimes one person’s rights can impinge on another’s. A good example of that is self-identification where any man claiming to self identify as a woman can enter the women’s bathrooms at any time.

Many, if not most, women are uncomfortable with that for many reasons ranging from privacy to safety. So why should the rights of trans men who only self indentify, without the proof if you like, get priority over that of the women who object. That would be blatant sexism in my opinon suggesting that the feelings of the trans men are more important than those of the women. Not to mention the potential safety issues for the women. Why?

That is where commonsense has to come into play. You can’t just run roughshot over the rights of one group to accommodate those of a another.

I think total equality is probably an impossible thing to achieve.

[poppsywoppsy]

Yes,but under the law as it stood gay people had not the equal rights to do so.

Hence why both Labour and Con govts.brought in bills for to ensure equal rights,and scrap clauses that discriminated against said gay communities.

Ann Widdecombe voted against every change to giving equal rights to lgbt people, thereby deliberately denying them the chance to live their lives as they wish to,equal under the law.

Well she lost, everything is now changed so why keep on about it?

She can think, act and behave as long as it is lawful, exactly as she wants.

Laws have been passed, equal rights are here, times have changed.

[Marsh.]

Well she lost, everything is now changed so why keep on about it?

She can think, act and behave as long as it is lawful, exactly as she wants.

Laws have been passed, equal rights are here, times have changed.
Yes. Why on earth must we discuss a big brother housemate in a thread about her on a forum designed for that purpose.

Why indeed.

[poppsywoppsy]

Goodness me you are hard work Popsywoppsy. Of course I am aware that Ann wasn't the only Tory MP to vote against Equal Marriage - I watched the debates on TV and on line. I could add MPs like Philip Hollobone, Peter Bone and Jacob Reec-Mogg in the mix too.

In no way am I or anyone else putting the blame on Ann's shoulders but as she's in the BBH and the other MPs are not of course we are commenting on Ann?! How do you know what Ann's constituents felt about equal marriage? I can tell you that the majority of the UK population are in favour by about 70%! Thus, I am sure most of Ann's constituents would have been in favour yet Ann ignored that and voted against because of her bigoted and homophobic beliefs - supported by her supposed Catholic 'faith'.

Indeed, Ann continues to use her power, as with the nomination of Andrew, to push her bigoted and homophobic agenda.

As for the play-fight, so what if they got aroused? What's the problem? Only a homophobe would object. Besides did you actually see their 'arousal' through their clothing? Because I didn't?!

Because they voted Ann back in until she retired might be a pointer.

Ann gave a valid nomination reason according to BB.

I heard them say they were aroused and they found it funny so why are you questioning their take on it.

[Brillopad]

Well she lost, everything is now changed so why keep on about it?

She can think, act and behave as long as it is lawful, exactly as she wants.

Laws have been passed, equal rights are here, times have changed.

Well said! They have indeed changed but for some that is not enough, they just want to push and push. It almost seems as if, for some, it is some kind of revenge for the past. They won’t be happy until their rights override everyone elses and they have it all.

[Marsh.]

Well said! They have indeed changed but for some that is not enough, they just want to push and push. It almost seems as if, for some, it is some kind of revenge for the past. They won’t be happy until their rights override everyone elses and they have it all.

Yes that must be it.

We are not discussing a prominent public figure who's appeared as a big part of celebrity big brother on a big brother forum.

That can't be it.
Well said! They have indeed changed but for some that is not enough, they just want to push and push. It almost seems as if, for some, it is some kind of revenge for the past. They won’t be happy until their rights override everyone elses and they have it all.

[Jack_]

If you find someone disagreeing with you patronizing, well not my problem. I disagree with others and they do not respond like you so perhaps less sensitivity might help.

Once again, there you go not reading my posts properly.

Disagree all you like

Again, I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me - this is a forum after all.

I accept your alternative opinion.

I said variety is the spice of life in an earlier response to you.

Why are you making this so difficult? How many times am I going to have to repeat myself before you understand? It's pretty straightforward.

This, for context, was some of the tone of your original response to me:

what is so hard in not using profanities every other word unless your vocabulary is limited.

Why you felt the need to call Ann ****ing Widdicombe ... is not her problem but the person who is using it.

So it seems she is not the most hated, or she is the most boring but she is one of the most POPULAR persons in there at the moment, whether you like it or not.

Think on.

That's not even mentioning the numerous instances in which you tried to explain something I'd already said or agreed with in my first post. Especially trying to insinuate I didn't like Ann or found her boring when I'd literally said in the first line of my original post that I wanted her to win :umm2:

You were patronising. You also didn't read my post properly, and tried to reiterate things I'd already said myself or put words into my mouth - I'm sure you've discovered this by now but it's one of the most irritating things I find about this forum.

So, you set the tone of the discussion. And I responded in kind. That's the way this works. You could've quite easily worded your response without the retorts I just quoted, and this could've been a productive and civilised discussion - I actually prefer that believe it or not, but if someone wants to make a debate hostile then that's the way it'll go. You made the call, not me.

I, have short shrift with such stuff and a forum is not the place to mind others having different views, I have no problem with your platitudes or provocations where none are called for.

For the umpteenth time, I don't care about others having differing views. I care about being spoken down to and patronised. All of my responses were a direct reaction to yours, they were all called for.

I asked where his Dad was because he wasn't there. Try not reading and surmising when it was a straightforward comment. I do think Andrew could benefit from a Fathers wisdom but am unaware of his family situation and asked where he was, nothing more or less.

The implication was more than clear and in fact you've explicitly stated it in the part I've just bolded, but nice try.

Andrew's father has no relevance to this situation whatsoever, if Ann had insinuated his father wouldn't be proud of him it would've been just as offensive.

Women are more than capable of raising children on their own, whether you're going to insinuate otherwise or not. It's not the 1950s anymore.

Your huge font was shouting and unecessary, just letting you know.

The huge font was because I really am fed up with people on this forum not reading my posts properly.

The patronising digs and overall tone of your original response were uncalled for and unnecessary, just letting you know.

I will give other poster a break from your reams of postings by letting you post to your hearts content by agreeing with yourself. I gave up after the first few lines and speedread until I fell asleep. A good cure for my insomnia, thank you very much.

Happily moving on, good luck:joker::shrug:

In other words - 'I can't find a way to prove you wrong so I'm going to give up rather than just admit I was wrong'. That's fair enough, I understand it can be difficult to apologise and to read more than a few lines - not everyone's reading comprehension is that strong.

Have a great day :joker: :cheer2: :dance:

You also could not see when Ann was called to the Diary room and passed Shane and Andrew in their so called playfight which THEY said they were aroused. Missed that out. You only saw a short clip.There are differing opinions about this but Ann hasn't shown herself to be untruthful.

This is literally fake news. If you believe the clip I posted is inaccurate and doesn't portray the whole scene, then the onus is on YOU to prove things occurred otherwise. Like I said, I am genuinely happy to be proven wrong but I didn't recall the incident happening like that and so sought out video evidence - and what I found showed nothing of the sort.

[Vicky.]

I read on here that Ann also voted against gay people being able to have civil partnerships, is this true?

Just..I understand her reason for voting against gay marriage if its really about the meaning of the word marriage (ie between a man and a woman, blahblah) even though I disagree with it, but I cannot think of any reason why she would vote against civil partnerships.

The age of consent thing I think I might possibly agree with her on. Not that gay people should have a different age of consent (though she clarified this was not what she meant) but that she thinks the age of consent for everyone should be raised. So she voted against lowering it as she thinks it should be higher for everyone, totally understand the reasoning for that one.

But civil partnerships, no idea. Can surely only be homophobia as civil partnerships is nothing to do with religion or anything. Thats why I am checking if that was actually true, I didn't realize there was a vote on them to start with tbh.

[Lilac hills]

Ann makes up for it by being a fantastic housemate tho tbhimo

Queen of being fantastic outside of her views :clap1:

[Vicky.]

Ann makes up for it by being a fantastic housemate tho tbhimo

Queen of being fantastic outside of her views :clap1:

Yeah this is the thing. I may disagree with her views, but I find her fantastic to watch :laugh:

When watching BB, I don't really care how nice a person someone is, I care how entertaining they are

[poppsywoppsy]

Once again, there you go not reading my posts properly.









Why are you making this so difficult? How many times am I going to have to repeat myself before you understand? It's pretty straightforward.

This, for context, was some of the tone of your original response to me:









That's not even mentioning the numerous instances in which you tried to explain something I'd already said or agreed with in my first post. Especially trying to insinuate I didn't like Ann or found her boring when I'd literally said in the first line of my original post that I wanted her to win :umm2:

You were patronising. You also didn't read my post properly, and tried to reiterate things I'd already said myself or put words into my mouth - I'm sure you've discovered this by now but it's one of the most irritating things I find about this forum.

So, you set the tone of the discussion. And I responded in kind. That's the way this works. You could've quite easily worded your response without the retorts I just quoted, and this could've been a productive and civilised discussion - I actually prefer that believe it or not, but if someone wants to make a debate hostile then that's the way it'll go. You made the call, not me.



For the umpteenth time, I don't care about others having differing views. I care about being spoken down to and patronised. All of my responses were a direct reaction to yours, they were all called for.



The implication was more than clear and in fact you've explicitly stated it in the part I've just bolded, but nice try.

Andrew's father has no relevance to this situation whatsoever, if Ann had insinuated his father wouldn't be proud of him it would've been just as offensive.

Women are more than capable of raising children on their own, whether you're going to insinuate otherwise or not. It's not the 1950s anymore.



The huge font was because I really am fed up with people on this forum not reading my posts properly.

The patronising digs and overall tone of your original response were uncalled for and unnecessary, just letting you know.



In other words - 'I can't find a way to prove you wrong so I'm going to give up rather than just admit I was wrong'. That's fair enough, I understand it can be difficult to apologise and to read more than a few lines - not everyone's reading comprehension is that strong.

Have a great day :joker: :cheer2: :dance:



This is literally fake news. If you believe the clip I posted is inaccurate and doesn't portray the whole scene, then the onus is on YOU to prove things occurred otherwise. Like I said, I am genuinely happy to be proven wrong but I didn't recall the incident happening like that and so sought out video evidence - and what I found showed nothing of the sort.

Give it a rest old chap:shrug::shrug

[Brillopad]

Once again, there you go not reading my posts properly.









Why are you making this so difficult? How many times am I going to have to repeat myself before you understand? It's pretty straightforward.

This, for context, was some of the tone of your original response to me:









That's not even mentioning the numerous instances in which you tried to explain something I'd already said or agreed with in my first post. Especially trying to insinuate I didn't like Ann or found her boring when I'd literally said in the first line of my original post that I wanted her to win :umm2:

You were patronising. You also didn't read my post properly, and tried to reiterate things I'd already said myself or put words into my mouth - I'm sure you've discovered this by now but it's one of the most irritating things I find about this forum.

So, you set the tone of the discussion. And I responded in kind. That's the way this works. You could've quite easily worded your response without the retorts I just quoted, and this could've been a productive and civilised discussion - I actually prefer that believe it or not, but if someone wants to make a debate hostile then that's the way it'll go. You made the call, not me.



For the umpteenth time, I don't care about others having differing views. I care about being spoken down to and patronised. All of my responses were a direct reaction to yours, they were all called for.



The implication was more than clear and in fact you've explicitly stated it in the part I've just bolded, but nice try.

Andrew's father has no relevance to this situation whatsoever, if Ann had insinuated his father wouldn't be proud of him it would've been just as offensive.

Women are more than capable of raising children on their own, whether you're going to insinuate otherwise or not. It's not the 1950s anymore.



The huge font was because I really am fed up with people on this forum not reading my posts properly.

The patronising digs and overall tone of your original response were uncalled for and unnecessary, just letting you know.



In other words - 'I can't find a way to prove you wrong so I'm going to give up rather than just admit I was wrong'. That's fair enough, I understand it can be difficult to apologise and to read more than a few lines - not everyone's reading comprehension is that strong.

Have a great day :joker: :cheer2: :dance:



This is literally fake news. If you believe the clip I posted is inaccurate and doesn't portray the whole scene, then the onus is on YOU to prove things occurred otherwise. Like I said, I am genuinely happy to be proven wrong but I didn't recall the incident happening like that and so sought out video evidence - and what I found showed nothing of the sort.

You take yourself too seriously these days Jack.

[Brillopad]

Give it a rest old chap:shrug::shrug

:hehe:

[Ellen]

If there was any Homophobic words or actions in the house BB would have acted as Rylan stated last night and there has not been.
I dont believe she is Homophobic at all, i also dont think she has a problem with gay people as i highly doubt she would be friends with any one gay or that anyone gay would want to be friends with her if she was Homophobic and this is clearly not the case.

[Paula D]

Bigot has got a good airing in this thread, at least it's giving racism a much needed duvet dayBigots calling other people bigots. It's hilarious.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Tom4784]

So what about all the other people who disagreed with this bill, she didn't do it on her own now did she. You are apportioning all the blame on her shoulders.

You cannot tell others how to vote in Parliament, her constituents could and would have done.

You also could not see when Ann was called to the Diary room and passed Shane and Andrew in their so called playfight which THEY said they were aroused. Missed that out. You only saw a short clip.There are differing opinions about this but Ann hasn't shown herself to be untruthful.

She's the one that's in the BB house, others aren't. Of course people are going to talk about the way she's voted in various issues.

[Tom4784]

The whole 'You're a bigot if you call other people bigots!' argument was tired months ago. It's a silly argument that does not make much actual sense in the real world. It's just reaching.

[chuff me dizzy]

Yes,but under the law as it stood gay people had not the equal rights to do so.

Hence why both Labour and Con govts.brought in bills for to ensure equal rights,and scrap clauses that discriminated against said gay communities.

Ann Widdecombe voted against every change to giving equal rights to lgbt people, thereby deliberately denying them the chance to live their lives as they wish to,equal under the law.

So why are they still bleating on fgs ?

[Kazanne]

Bigots calling other people bigots. It's hilarious.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

I'm just ignoring it all now it's got bloody silly ,round and round in circles,people trying to tell people how they should feel and what they should say,i have noticed the ones who are calling Ann are the ones throwing the insults round more, so go figure that one,imo Ann is not homophobic,I don't want to watch two grown adults talking dirty and rolling round the floor either,so people can be as close minded as they like ,NO WAY is she homophobic,but she will be asked about it when she leaves so why not wait and find out before condemning the woman. Is everyone supposed to like the same thing:shrug:

[Brillopad]

Great and accurate post poppsywoppy I don't know why people think it makes them look tough swearing like a trooper to get their point across,it just shows a lack of education and Andrew is definately uneducated

His looks will fade sooner than he thinks and with a lack of any substance he will get a rude awakening to real life. Good looks won’t carry him through life for long. I feel for him - not!

[Paula D]

No it's not. It makes perfect sense.

I've quoted the dictionary definition of bigot enough times.

Look it up.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Jack_]

Give it a rest old chap:shrug::shrug

Bless you :love: I know it's embarrassing to be proven wrong but don't worry my friend

[Vicky.]

His looks will fade sooner than he thinks and with a lack of any substance he will get a rude awakening to real life. Good looks won’t carry him through life for long. I feel for him - not!

As with most years, I started off thinking Andrew was absolutely gorgeous. By the time he left I did not fancy him at all. Personality is very important.

This happens to me every year on BB. Think someone is lush then end up finding them gross. Or think someone is average and end up with a raging crush :laugh:

[Kazanne]

So why are they still bleating on fgs ?

So what happened to people declaring "I only judge people how they are in the house" ?or is that only for people you like? I know a few people that have said that when challenged about previous housemates , talk about double standards.

[chuff me dizzy]

I'm just ignoring it all now it's got bloody silly ,round and round in circles,people trying to tell people how they should feel and what they should say,i have noticed the ones who are calling Ann are the ones throwing the insults round more, so go figure that one,imo Ann is not homophobic,I don't want to watch two grown adults talking dirty and rolling round the floor either,so people can be as close minded as they like ,NO WAY is she homophobic,but she will be asked about it when she leaves so why not wait and find out before condemning the woman. Is everyone supposed to like the same thing:shrug:

Same here

[Brillopad]

People are allowed to think that someone is homophobic.

People are allowed to think many things.

[Kazanne]

Same here

We must be homophobes,:laugh:OMG, string me up

[Withano]

I'm just ignoring it all now it's got bloody silly ,round and round in circles,people trying to tell people how they should feel and what they should say,i have noticed the ones who are calling Ann are the ones throwing the insults round more, so go figure that one,imo Ann is not homophobic,I don't want to watch two grown adults talking dirty and rolling round the floor either,so people can be as close minded as they like ,NO WAY is she homophobic,but she will be asked about it when she leaves so why not wait and find out before condemning the woman. Is everyone supposed to like the same thing:shrug:

Good job at ignoring, kaz