ann supporting conversion therapy

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

i just saw this in another thread but it got locked so i’m continuing the discussion here teehee

what are your thoughts?

in MY opinion she’s scum

[Marches]

Stop trying to use housemate conversion therapy on Ann fans

[GiRTh]

Horrendous it doesn't work and I dont understand how anyone can think it does. Plus the psychological scars.

[Vicky.]

I found it really odd how this managed to stay on the hush until a few days before the final, when there have been a few people constantly going on about her voting record. Good timing for it to surface now. Anyway

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/ann-widdecombe/299271/Helping-those-who-aren-t-glad-to-be-gay

Is what she actually said on it all.

[Marches]

Horrendous it doesn't work and I dont understand how anyone can think it does. Plus the psychological scars.

Btw strawman nobody agrees with conversion therapy on this forum

[GiRTh]

Btw strawman nobody agrees with conversion therapy on this forumWhos Strawman? :conf:
If you dont agree say so no need for these extra comments

[Vicky.]

OK I will also be deleting the snipey comments that ended up getting the other thread closed in the end. Don't want to end up having to bloody close another here. Its possible to talk about this without being all sarky and baiting

[Vanessa]

I had no idea about this. Glad I don't support Ann anymore now.

[Kazanne]

Can people read ? instead of just being happy to believe people who dont like her, this story is not so black and white, she wanted to help gays who didn't WANT to be gay,so maybe go and read up ,people at one time thought it would cure them the gay person WANTED the therepy. loving these new words converstion therapy oh how people are grasping at it,

[Paula D]

Please expand further by what you understand Ann to support?

Or are you going off one line in a tweet?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[reece(:]

She's a dinosaur with dated views, no shocker

Hopefully in 70 years time views like conversion therapy belief are totally eradicated

[Kazanne]

I had no idea about this. Glad I don't support Ann anymore now.

But your happy to believe what is said on here instead of researching it,that figures.

[Vanessa]

She's a dinosaur with dated views, no shocker

Hopefully in 70 years time views like conversion therapy belief are totally eradicated

It sounds so wrong to do that to someone :(

[Cherie]

Can people read ? instead of just being happy to believe people who dont like her, this story is not so black and white, she wanted to help gays who didn't WANT to be gay,so maybe go and read up ,people at one time thought it would cure them the gay person WANTED the therepy. loving these new words converstion therapy oh how people are grasping at it,


There isn't much point posting this as it will just be ignored :laugh:

[Kazanne]

It sounds so wrong to do that to someone :(

The gay person WANTED the therapy,no one was forced,have you actually read Vickys article ?

[Smithy]

Can people read ? instead of just being happy to believe people who dont like her, this story is not so black and white, she wanted to help gays who didn't WANT to be gay,so maybe go and read up ,people at one time thought it would cure them the gay person WANTED the therepy. loving these new words converstion therapy oh how people are grasping at it,

It has literally been a thing since the 1920’s, it’s all well and good telling others to read up about it, maybe you should too....



Like Reece said, her views are outdated, it’s a generational so no doubt a couple of decades from now people will look back at it in horror in a similar way to slavery (and I’m not comparing those two btw, I’m just saying people will look back in a “wow can you believe that actually used to happen” kind of way)

[bots]

I found it really odd how this managed to stay on the hush until a few days before the final, when there have been a few people constantly going on about her voting record. Good timing for it to surface now. Anyway

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/ann-widdecombe/299271/Helping-those-who-aren-t-glad-to-be-gay

Is what she actually said on it all.

Thanks for posting that link Vicky. Again Ann states things clearly. If someone is reaching out to doctors for help, we should treat them. She is saying that we shouldn't turn away someone in mental turmoil. Not the same thing as some wish to imply at all.

[MB.]

Can people read ? instead of just being happy to believe people who dont like her, this story is not so black and white, she wanted to help gays who didn't WANT to be gay,so maybe go and read up ,people at one time thought it would cure them the gay person WANTED the therepy. loving these new words converstion therapy oh how people are grasping at it,

Nobody thought this in 2012, which is when Ann spoke out in defence of it

[Kazanne]

There isn't much point posting this as it will just be ignored :laugh:

I know I thought that ,but really it's like just because they hate her they flow along with anything said,such close mindedness I have never seen before.

[Shaun]

It's an interesting issue because there are instances of gay/bisexual people wishing to partake in 'therapy' themselves but ultimately it's like trying to get experimental medical treatment to make yourself taller / grow a few extra inches down below. It's just doomed to failure and going to upset you further :laugh: and the idea that people can make money off what is essentially denying someone's identity - since it's not covered by the NHS and would be a private medical expense - is shameful.

Mental health and psychiatric branches of the NHS would be better suited to this instance.

Also the article explains the instance of an undercover reporter seeking 'treatment', so it's not technically written from the POV, or indeed in defence, of someone who actually wants the treatment.

[Bones]

She's a dinosaur with dated views, no shocker



Not really.

[Jamie89]

I'm surprised tbh, even with her views she's still an intelligent woman and just a small amount of knowledge of/research into conversion therapy will show that it's not only useless but also can be pretty damaging.. If somebody wants to have conversion therapy then it means their issues with their sexuality are so deep that they'll very likely only be damaged further by having it, it's actually quite cruel to those people to encourage it.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

I'm surprised tbh, even with her views she's still an intelligent woman and just a small amount of knowledge of/research into conversion therapy will show that it's not only useless but also can be pretty damaging.. If somebody wants to have conversion therapy then it means their issues with their sexuality are so deep that they'll very likely only be damaged further by having it, it's actually quite cruel to those people to encourage it.

:clap1:

[Pete.]

https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/users/82x82/277.jpg

[luvjustin]

Can people read ? instead of just being happy to believe people who dont like her, this story is not so black and white, she wanted to help gays who didn't WANT to be gay,so maybe go and read up ,people at one time thought it would cure them the gay person WANTED the therepy. loving these new words converstion therapy oh how people are grasping at it,

You mean she wanted to take advantage of the mentally ill.

[Vicky.]

You mean she wanted to take advantage of the mentally ill.

I would argue that most paid therapy is this tbh.

My pain clinic keeps trying to get me to go to new therapy...to mentally deal with the pain I am in. As if ****ing thinking it away will make it go away. its stupid :bored:

[Bones]

Ann is Queen.

[Jamie89]

You mean she wanted to take advantage of the mentally ill.

This as well tbh. Conversion therapy serves no other purpose than to promote an anti-gay agenda and she used other people's suffering for that end. I could give her the benefit of the doubt that she just didn't know enough about it but given her knowledge and intelligence I'd be very surprised.

I would argue that most paid therapy is this tbh.

My pain clinic keeps trying to get me to go to new therapy...to mentally deal with the pain I am in. As if ****ing thinking it away will make it go away. its stupid :bored:

That's different though, The point in that therapy would be to help you deal with the pain and that's not what the aim of conversion therapy is. Psychological therapy for people struggling with their sexuality could be good for them but that's not conversion therapy.

[Vicky.]

That's different though, The point in that therapy would be to help you deal with the pain and that's not what the aim of conversion therapy is. Psychological therapy for people struggling with their sexuality could be good for them but that's not conversion therapy.

Oh yes, I am not comparing conversion therapy to this stupid therapy i am being offered D: just saying that basically all paid therapy is taking advantage of the (physically or mentally) ill tbh

[Jamie89]

Oh yes, I am not comparing conversion therapy to this stupid therapy i am being offered D: just saying that basically all paid therapy is taking advantage of the (physically or mentally) ill tbh

Oh right :laugh: well yeah I suppose it is. Although it's not really a bad thing if it helps

[bots]

Oh right :laugh: well yeah I suppose it is. Although it's not really a bad thing if it helps

Honestly think thats what Ann was referring to, particularly in reference to her time working for the Samaritans, critical point of care .... that by the way is genuinely showing care for every human being .... i don't see many threads saying how commendable that is :laugh:

[Jamie89]

Honestly think thats what Ann was referring to, particularly in reference to her time working for the Samaritans, critical point of care .... that by the way is genuinely showing care for every human being .... i don't see many threads saying how commendable that is :laugh:

I wasn't referring to conversion therapy with that comment btw ^ it's the opposite of helpful, and if Ann had genuinely good intent then it'd require not having knowledge of it and I just find that really hard to believe... but yes it could be possible. I'm sure she's done good elsewhere with her Samaritan work etc and she's not all bad but she's not all good either and I can't get on board with defending this sorry, promoting conversion therapy knowingly of what the reality of it is and what the dangers are is indefensible imo.

[letmein]

It has literally been a thing since the 1920’s, it’s all well and good telling others to read up about it, maybe you should too....



Like Reece said, her views are outdated, it’s a generational so no doubt a couple of decades from now people will look back at it in horror in a similar way to slavery (and I’m not comparing those two btw, I’m just saying people will look back in a “wow can you believe that actually used to happen” kind of way)

Oh, stop with that nonsense already.

[JerseyWins]

Stop trying to use housemate conversion therapy on Ann fans
:joker:

[Tom4784]

I found it really odd how this managed to stay on the hush until a few days before the final, when there have been a few people constantly going on about her voting record. Good timing for it to surface now. Anyway

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/ann-widdecombe/299271/Helping-those-who-aren-t-glad-to-be-gay

Is what she actually said on it all.

You can't 'help' someone who is unhappy with being gay by conning them into believing that they can change what gender they love. I think the infertility argument as well as the Transgender arguments are stupid as well. Infertility can be treated, it's a medical condition as is Gender Dysmorphia.

I bet there's few LGBT people in this world who haven't at some point wished they were straight because life is easier when you don't have to worry about the ramifications of being open about your sexuality with the wrong person, it's easier not to deal with the bull**** that anyone who isn't hetero has to face but that doesn't mean that we should support the psychological trauma and self hatred that comes with conversion therapy, I don't care how soft and fluffy Ann makes it seem in her article. The reality of conversion therapy is completely ****ed up as is anyone who believes it's acceptable. Sexuality can not be changed, conversion therapy only exposes fragile people to more psychological trauma as it teaches them to that who they are is wrong, these people need to be taught acceptance for who they love, that's the only way to be happy.

To damage someone so much that they falsely believe they are straight is a ticking timebomb waiting to happen.

[GoldHeart]

If you want to open a can of worms and get really deep into it , why don't we talk about how EFFED up it is that SHOCK therapy existed for anyone and everyone that experienced depression, mental health and stress :nono:.

The people in "white coats" thought this was the answer to anyone who didn't conform with the norm of the backwards society back then.

And just remember it doesn't just take 1 person to make these decisions for so called therapy :facepalm:.

[camertone]

Ann hates everyone who is different from her and has no empathy for others. Her voting record is awful.

Dissing Meghan Markle is another example. Seems like everyone already forgot about that.

[Mokka]

Thanks for posting that link Vicky. Again Ann states things clearly. If someone is reaching out to doctors for help, we should treat them. She is saying that we shouldn't turn away someone in mental turmoil. Not the same thing as some wish to imply at all.

And yet... When India made the point that people who were trans and couldn't get the medical procedure that helps them become physically what they know they are internally... and often times it cause mental turmoil leading to suicide... Ann argued that others medical procedures are more prevalent. Hmmm.. seems to me a bit of an oxymoron.

[Ammi]

I wasn't referring to conversion therapy with that comment btw ^ it's the opposite of helpful, and if Ann had genuinely good intent then it'd require not having knowledge of it and I just find that really hard to believe... but yes it could be possible. I'm sure she's done good elsewhere with her Samaritan work etc and she's not all bad but she's not all good either and I can't get on board with defending this sorry, promoting conversion therapy knowingly of what the reality of it is and what the dangers are is indefensible imo.

...yeah I agree, Jamie...obviously she can be a caring person as well, we all have many aspects to us which makes us not ‘extremes’...and some like Amanda, can just ‘overlook’ certain opinions which is fine also, to focus on the ‘good’ in people etc, especially in the context of spending time with people in the house..but in doing that, you can’t separate that person from their opinions of what they believe in because what they believe in is equally very much them as well, people are their opinions in that those opinions are a representative of them..their opinions is how they express themselves verbally...for me there are things with Ann that just cannot be defended no matter which old way it’s flipped or looked at...I mean, the alleged sexual assault charges of Harvey Weinstein as well../that conversation...actually it was Amanda’s opinion with that as well...the victim blaming of saying one of the females should have said or she didn’t understand why they hadn’t said, no sorry darling, it’s just not worth getting the part... and Ann agreeing it had been a choice...sexual assault is a ‘choice’, then...?...Hmmmm, interesting...and with conversion therapy and her ‘thoughtfulness’ there, should we go back then to thinking about chemical castration as well...how far can ‘old fashioned’ be felt an excuse or a reason or etc....there are some things, some opinions with Ann that are very difficult to look beyond because those opinions are as much a reflection of her as any of the ‘good stuff’, so equally cannot be ignored...

[Jamie89]

And yet... When India made the point that people who were trans and couldn't get the medical procedure that helps them become physically what they know they are internally... and often times it cause mental turmoil leading to suicide... Ann argued that others medical procedures are more prevalent. Hmmm.. seems to me a bit of an oxymoron.

That's a good point I never even thought about that, she doesn't want people to have to pay to treat those with a genuine disorder... but line the gays up for conversion therapy! Because being transsexual might not be as serious as having cancer but being gay sure is? (and I'd assume it could actually end up being a greater burden on the NHS in terms of money and time/resources if it was available and commonly seen as something that could be helpful which is how she's tried to position it so at best she's a hypocrite.)
She also said in the article that it could help gay men who want to father children and get married yet she apposes adoption and marriage for gay people (and ignores the fact gay people can have children naturally anyway... as well as ignoring lesbians by putting the focus on fathering, which is very interesting). Her pretext of wanting to 'help' these people is ridiculous, the whole article is twisted actually.

[Cherie]

That's a good point I never even thought about that, she doesn't want people to have to pay to treat those with a genuine disorder... but line the gays up for conversion therapy! Because being transsexual might not be as serious as having cancer but being gay sure is? (and I'd assume it could actually end up being a greater burden on the NHS in terms of money and time/resources if it was available and commonly seen as something that could be helpful which is how she's tried to position it so at best she's a hypocrite.)
She also said in the article that it could help gay men who want to father children and get married yet she apposes adoption and marriage for gay people (and ignores the fact gay people can have children naturally anyway... as well as ignoring lesbians by putting the focus on fathering, which is very interesting). Her pretext of wanting to 'help' these people is ridiculous, the whole article is twisted actually.

in 2012 the NHS wasn't in the crisis it is now, and also I presume the number of transgender operations rises year on year, it would be good to see the figures

[Ellen]

She believes that people are entitled to get help if they have problems and that should also be afforded to gay people as well, at the time someone who was struggling with been gay or didnt want to be gay was not been given any help. When she worked at Samaritans they did not promote 'it is ok to be gay' to someone who hated or didnt want to be gay. That is why she agreed if gay people were struggling then they should have therapy like everybody else.

[Jamie89]

in 2012 the NHS wasn't in the crisis it is now, and also I presume the number of transgender operations rises year on year, it would be good to see the figures

Possibly, I'm not sure tbh, although the number of transsexual people is still very small overall. I hadn't really considered that changes with NHS finances might be the reason for her difference of opinions between the two, I can't remember if she said her views on transsexual's operations was specifically because of the NHS crisis or if it was a more general thing of 'there's more serious issues to deal with'. I got the impression she was against it being paid for with public money on principle rather than being solely down to the current state of the NHS. I'm just guessing though I could be wrong about that.

She believes that people are entitled to get help if they have problems and that should also be afforded to gay people as well, at the time someone who was struggling with been gay or didnt want to be gay was not been given any help. When she worked at Samaritans they did not promote 'it is ok to be gay' to someone who hated or didnt want to be gay. That is why she agreed if gay people were struggling then they should have therapy like everybody else.

Conversion therapy doesn't help it damages the person further, this is the point, she's promoting something that actually harms people under the guise of being helpful. It has 'therapy' in it's name but it isn't therapy. Actual therapy that helps someone deal with their struggle could of course be beneficial. Conversion therapy isn't that.

[Kazanne]

Possibly, I'm not sure tbh, although the number of transsexual people is still very small overall. I hadn't really considered that changes with NHS finances might be the reason for her difference of opinions between the two, I can't remember if she said her views on transsexual's operations was specifically because of the NHS crisis or if it was a more general thing of 'there's more serious issues to deal with'. I got the impression she was against it being paid for with public money on principle rather than being solely down to the current state of the NHS. I'm just guessing though I could be wrong about that.



Conversion therapy doesn't help it damages the person further, this is the point, she's promoting something that actually harms people under the guise of being helpful. It has 'therapy' in it's name but it isn't therapy. Actual therapy that helps someone deal with their struggle could of course be beneficial. Conversion therapy isn't that.

Maybe Ann didn't know this at that time afterall she isn't a doctor,she probably thought it was helpful,maybe she thinks differently now this is the thing ,we DON'T know,unless she is questioned on it,people do change their minds on things, even so all this is way in the past,it doesn't happen now,so don't know what people want to happen.

[Ellen]

Possibly, I'm not sure tbh, although the number of transsexual people is still very small overall. I hadn't really considered that changes with NHS finances might be the reason for her difference of opinions between the two, I can't remember if she said her views on transsexual's operations was specifically because of the NHS crisis or if it was a more general thing of 'there's more serious issues to deal with'. I got the impression she was against it being paid for with public money on principle rather than being solely down to the current state of the NHS. I'm just guessing though I could be wrong about that.



Conversion therapy doesn't help it damages the person further, this is the point, she's promoting something that actually harms people under the guise of being helpful. It has 'therapy' in it's name but it isn't therapy. Actual therapy that helps someone deal with their struggle could of course be beneficial. Conversion therapy isn't that.

I think she more promote's the idea that gay people should receive help if they ask for it.
Things have changed since then but i still think she would agree that anybody asking for help should receive it.

[Jamie89]

Maybe Ann didn't know this at that time afterall she isn't a doctor,she probably thought it was helpful,maybe she thinks differently now this is the thing ,we DON'T know,unless she is questioned on it,people do change their minds on things, even so all this is way in the past,it doesn't happen now,so don't know what people want to happen.

I hope that's the case Kaz, I did say earlier on tbf that she could be unaware, I just find it hard to believe that's all given who she is and that she would write an article on it being uninformed without looking into it, but yes it could be true.
I don't want anything to happen, I'm just pointing out why I believe her to be wrong on this because it's something I feel strongly about.

I think she more promote's the idea that gay people should receive help if they ask for it.
Things have changed since then but i still think she would agree that anybody asking for help should receive it.

No, she specifically endorses conversion therapy for them and that doesn't help them. Yes they should receive help but that's not what conversion therapy does.

[joeysteele]

I'm surprised tbh, even with her views she's still an intelligent woman and just a small amount of knowledge of/research into conversion therapy will show that it's not only useless but also can be pretty damaging.. If somebody wants to have conversion therapy then it means their issues with their sexuality are so deep that they'll very likely only be damaged further by having it, it's actually quite cruel to those people to encourage it.


Well said Jamie.
It is cruel in the end,you are right.
It's worrying that anyone elected to Parliament would advocate such views as this.
More worrying to me is others supporting it and her view too.

As you pointed out thankfully,there is near a fair bit of contradiction in other her long held views,and this issue too.

[jaxie]

Ann was speaking out on behalf of someone else who wanted to have this therapy and wasn't allowed. She wasn't supporting it personally, she was supporting his right, which is really different matter. Perhaps he needs to do it to convince himself it does not work, sometimes it's hard to be in someone elses head. As with many things to do with Ann, some people pick up a sentence and see black and white and ignore the grey area of what she really said.

[jaxie]

Well said Jamie.
It is cruel in the end,you are right.
It's worrying that anyone elected to Parliament would advocate such views as this.
More worrying to me is others supporting it and her view too.

As you pointed out thankfully,there is near a fair bit of contradiction in other her long held views,and this issue too.

Reminder, Ann has been retired for 8 years now. She was retired when she wrote that article.

[Paula D]

Ann was speaking out on behalf of someone else who wanted to have this therapy and wasn't allowed. She wasn't supporting it personally, she was supporting his right, which is really different matter. Perhaps he needs to do it to convince himself it does not work, sometimes it's hard to be in someone elses head. As with many things to do with Ann, some people pick up a sentence and see black and white and ignore the grey area of what she really said.

People with their own agenda don't read articles, they just read one-liners off Twitter or Facebook and run with that.

So much easier to get outraged over a soundbite you see.

[jaxie]

People with their own agenda don't read articles, they just read one-liners off Twitter or Facebook and run with that.

So much easier to get outraged over a soundbite you see.

The article seems to be based on the case of his rights and the vilification of his therapist rather than on the actual therapy. It doesn't come across as her supporting it to me. It comes across as her feeling sympathy for him and his therapist.

It really shows how people read a headline without reading the actual news.

[joeysteele]

Reminder, Ann has been retired for 8 years now. She was retired when she wrote that article.

I'm not stupid jaxie,I am well aware she left parliament but not campaigning in 2010.
I've actually listened to Ann speak so have a knowledge as to her.

She was retired too when Cameron brought in the gay marriage bill.
She still made plenty noise on that.

[jaxie]

I'm not stupid jaxie,I am well aware she left parliament but not campaigning in 2010.
I've actually listened to Ann speak so have a knowledge as to her.

She was retired too when Cameron brought in the gay marriage bill.
She still made plenty noise on that.

She's a roman catholic. :shrug: The problem lays with the pope et al. Most established religion does not support homosexuality in its teachings.

I'm all for scrapping religion.

You are trying to kick the dog for the actions of its master.

[poppsywoppsy]

Can I ask if the person involved in conversion therapy has the right to refuse it?

[Kazanne]

Ann was speaking out on behalf of someone else who wanted to have this therapy and wasn't allowed. She wasn't supporting it personally, she was supporting his right, which is really different matter. Perhaps he needs to do it to convince himself it does not work, sometimes it's hard to be in someone elses head. As with many things to do with Ann, some people pick up a sentence and see black and white and ignore the grey area of what she really said.

Excellent post Jaxie this is what I was trying to point out,but people just latch on to the things they don't understand as they don't like her,pretty ridiculous really,I have been reading more on her stuff in her column and far from the 'nasty,racist,bigot' as claimed on here,she is actually a very caring kind woman,one thing good from it all is I have learnt a lot of stuff on her,some I don't agree with but respect she has opinions I don't , but is she as bad a painted on here? NO bloody way.People really need to look at the bigger picture.

[Jamie89]

Ann was speaking out on behalf of someone else who wanted to have this therapy and wasn't allowed. She wasn't supporting it personally, she was supporting his right, which is really different matter. Perhaps he needs to do it to convince himself it does not work, sometimes it's hard to be in someone elses head. As with many things to do with Ann, some people pick up a sentence and see black and white and ignore the grey area of what she really said.

She was giving her own views on conversion therapy nobody else's, she used somebody else in the article as an example to highlight her stance but it seems pretty clear to me she's in favour of it and considers it an acceptable form of therapy. Throughout the article she positions it as something that should be considered 'helpful'. I really don't see the grey in this - she supports it as a legitimate therapy and promotes it by telling people it can be helpful... this is all directly from the article, her own words, what she believes.

Does anyone defending Ann on this not find it in the least bit odd that she'd completely omit the dangers of conversion therapy and how it's discredited by medical professionals, and only portrays it in the article as something that could be helpful (which isn't even the case).

[joeysteele]

[QUOTE=jaxie;9838937]She's a roman catholic. :shrug: The problem lays with the pope et al. Most established religion does not support homosexuality in its teachings.

I'm all for scrapping religion.

You are trying to kick the dog for the actions of its master.[/QUOTE


She chose to leave the C of E to join the RC church.
She wasn't born into Catholicism, she chose it and it's rules voluntarily.

[jaxie]

Ann hates everyone who is different from her and has no empathy for others. Her voting record is awful.

Dissing Meghan Markle is another example. Seems like everyone already forgot about that.

I'm not in raptures over Megan Markle either. So what are you saying?

[jaxie]

[QUOTE=jaxie;9838937]She's a roman catholic. :shrug: The problem lays with the pope et al. Most established religion does not support homosexuality in its teachings.

I'm all for scrapping religion.

You are trying to kick the dog for the actions of its master.[/QUOTE


She chose to leave the C of E to join the RC church.
She wasn't born into Catholicism, she chose it and it's rules voluntarily.

She swapped one church for another. Why do people believe at all? In my view its brain washing. :shrug: Not sure what your point is here tbh.

[bots]

She was giving her own views on conversion therapy nobody else's, she used somebody else in the article as an example to highlight her stance but it seems pretty clear to me she's in favour of it and considers it an acceptable form of therapy. Throughout the article she positions it as something that should be considered 'helpful'. I really don't see the grey in this - she supports it as a legitimate therapy and promotes it by telling people it can be helpful... this is all directly from the article, her own words, what she believes.

Does anyone defending Ann on this not find it in the least bit odd that she'd completely omit the dangers of conversion therapy and how it's discredited by medical professionals, and only portrays it in the article as something that could be helpful (which isn't even the case).

Thing is jamie, she is entitled to that opinion if she wants it. Did she ram it down peoples throats in the house like Shane J? Did she suggest that he, Wayne and Amanda should book a course of treatment without further delay?

Everything I have seen of Ann points to her being a very kind and caring person. That's what she has shown to her housemates every day. What does she get in return? Obnoxious twats trying to get her to say something that is not politically correct so they can score a point. Do people really think that is going to further their agenda? I can tell you clear as day now it won't. People will bite back at that type of forced agenda. Shane has done more harm than good for his "cause"

[jaxie]

i just saw this in another thread but it got locked so i’m continuing the discussion here teehee

what are your thoughts?

in MY opinion she’s scum

Your opinion then is a problem and does not reflect you in a light that is better than the one you are shining on Ann. :shrug:

[GoldHeart]

Thing is jamie, she is entitled to that opinion if she wants it. Did she ram it down peoples throats in the house like Shane J? Did she suggest that he, Wayne and Amanda should book a course of treatment without further delay?

Everything I have seen of Ann points to her being a very kind and caring person. That's what she has shown to her housemates every day. What does she get in return? Obnoxious twats trying to get her to say something that is not politically correct so they can score a point. Do people really think that is going to further their agenda? I can tell you clear as day now it won't. People will bite back at that type of forced agenda. Shane has done more harm than good for his "cause"

:clap1:

[Ammi]

People with their own agenda don't read articles, they just read one-liners off Twitter or Facebook and run with that.

So much easier to get outraged over a soundbite you see.

..to be fair, that’s not actually true, Paula...that people just tend to read one liners and fit those with agendas and leanings because many, many people don’t do that at all..(..whichever housemate they support..)...I’ve been googling myself to read the article which Ann wrote...and with that, it wasn’t actually anyone who was asking for help with the pshychologist, it was an undercover reporter who was investigating what type of ‘therapy’ would be offered and available...the psychologist who suggested conversion therapy has since been struck off for malpractice for doing so...so it feels like Ann wrote an article in support of something, without more research herself, as Jamie said...research into what would be involved in conversion therapy and how it makes a person feel ashamed of who they are in their sexuality...something which is so abhorrent that I’m sure Ann wouldn’t believe her God and beliefs would feel it had any positive values at all to any human being...

[jaxie]

She was giving her own views on conversion therapy nobody else's, she used somebody else in the article as an example to highlight her stance but it seems pretty clear to me she's in favour of it and considers it an acceptable form of therapy. Throughout the article she positions it as something that should be considered 'helpful'. I really don't see the grey in this - she supports it as a legitimate therapy and promotes it by telling people it can be helpful... this is all directly from the article, her own words, what she believes.

Does anyone defending Ann on this not find it in the least bit odd that she'd completely omit the dangers of conversion therapy and how it's discredited by medical professionals, and only portrays it in the article as something that could be helpful (which isn't even the case).

I'm sorry but the article didn't read like that to me at all. She didn't say anything about the actual therapy or supporting it just that the man had the right to try it if that was what he felt he needed to do.

You or I have no idea what Ann actually knows about the actual therapy. I personally know nothing though I'll agree it doesn't sound a great idea since it has been scientifically proved homosexuality is in your chromosones.

However I'm not sure that is the same as agreeing someone has no right to try it if its out there and that is what they want.

I don't agree with Ann on her views, though she explains herself well. I am very anti religion so there is a huge gulf between her and I. But I also don't agree she deserves the vilification she is getting. When the op calls her scum and people start baying for her to be punished it makes those who claim to be defending right and good look like the people with the stakes and pitchforks.

[Jamie89]

Thing is jamie, she is entitled to that opinion if she wants it. Did she ram it down peoples throats in the house like Shane J? Did she suggest that he, Wayne and Amanda should book a course of treatment without further delay?

Everything I have seen of Ann points to her being a very kind and caring person. That's what she has shown to her housemates every day. What does she get in return? Obnoxious twats trying to get her to say something that is not politically correct so they can score a point. Do people really think that is going to further their agenda? I can tell you clear as day now it won't. People will bite back at that type of forced agenda. Shane has done more harm than good for his "cause"

There's having an opinion and there's actively promoting something that's harmful to people, that's a few steps beyond just expressing an opinion.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying about Ann, I don't think she's the devil and yes she could be a lot worse (and there are good things about her too) but I think she crosses a line with this.

I'm sorry but the article didn't read like that to me at all. She didn't say anything about the actual therapy or supporting it just that the man had the right to try it if that was what he felt he needed to do.

You or I have no idea what Ann actually knows about the actual therapy. I personally know nothing though I'll agree it doesn't sound a great idea since it has been scientifically proved homosexuality is in your chromosones.

However I'm not sure that is the same as agreeing someone has no right to try it if its out there and that is what they want.

I don't agree with Ann on her views, though she explains herself well. I am very anti religion so there is a huge gulf between her and I. But I also don't agree she deserves the vilification she is getting. When the op calls her scum and people start baying for her to be punished it makes those who claim to be defending right and good look like the people with the stakes and pitchforks.

She doesn't explicitly say conversion therapy is a good thing, the reason I read it the way I did was because of how she positions it as being something that could be helpful for people, and she certainly does do that. This encourages it for people who are looking for help and could ultimately be very damaging for them, I just find it so irresponsible.

[Cherie]

Thing is jamie, she is entitled to that opinion if she wants it. Did she ram it down peoples throats in the house like Shane J? Did she suggest that he, Wayne and Amanda should book a course of treatment without further delay?

Everything I have seen of Ann points to her being a very kind and caring person. That's what she has shown to her housemates every day. What does she get in return? Obnoxious twats trying to get her to say something that is not politically correct so they can score a point. Do people really think that is going to further their agenda? I can tell you clear as day now it won't. People will bite back at that type of forced agenda. Shane has done more harm than good for his "cause"

:joker:

and as for the rest of your post welcome back BOTS :worship:

[Vicky.]

The article seems to be based on the case of his rights and the vilification of his therapist rather than on the actual therapy. It doesn't come across as her supporting it to me. It comes across as her feeling sympathy for him and his therapist.

It really shows how people read a headline without reading the actual news.

The article to me is almost completely about people attacking Christians whilst leaving other religions alone tbh. It seems to have came out at a time when Christians were attacked left right and centre (whats new) and thats the angle I think she was going for tbh, nothing to do with actually caring or not caring about gay people. Or even the therapist involved tbh, except for them being Christian.

I don't really read it as in support of conversion therapy, more...against the witch hunt of Christians. With the 'I care about people' angle thrown in to make the article seem better :laugh:

I have actually read a lot about conversion therapy because of this thread. Its not something I ever knew much about tbh...I knew that horrible horrible practices went on. I thought that sometimes therapy was practiced that was more...ethical (though cannot see how on earth it could work either way). Seems this is actually true. I also didn't know it was still legal in many parts of the US.

[jaxie]

The article to me is almost completely about people attacking Christians whilst leaving other religions alone tbh. It seems to have came out at a time when Christians were attacked left right and centre (whats new) and thats the angle I think she was going for tbh, nothing to do with actually caring or not caring about gay people. Or even the therapist involved tbh, except for them being Christian.

I don't really read it as in support of conversion therapy, more...against the witch hunt of Christians. With the 'I care about people' angle thrown in to make the article seem better :laugh:

I have actually read a lot about conversion therapy because of this thread. Its not something I ever knew much about tbh...I knew that horrible horrible practices went on. I thought that sometimes therapy was practiced that was more...ethical (though cannot see how on earth it could work either way). Seems this is actually true. I also didn't know it was still legal in many parts of the US.

tibb educating us all!

Tbh I didn't think such therapies were allowed nowadays. I think Ann often comes from a religious slant as it is very much a part of her make up and who she is, that unshakable belief. Coming from the opposite view I'd love to have a chat with her!

[Vicky.]

Tbh I didn't think such therapies were allowed nowadays.

They aren't in many places. Apparently its still fine in a lot of states in the US though. Most likely the more...religious states. I thought it would not be allowed anywhere tbh, as there is no proof it works and as dezzy said, it can cause harm. And apparently one of the main codes of medics is 'do no harm' (though they seem to throw that our of the window for certain treatments)

[Paula D]

..to be fair, that’s not actually true, Paula...that people just tend to read one liners and fit those with agendas and leanings because many, many people don’t do that at all..(..whichever housemate they support..)...I’ve been googling myself to read the article which Ann wrote...and with that, it wasn’t actually anyone who was asking for help with the pshychologist, it was an undercover reporter who was investigating what type of ‘therapy’ would be offered and available...the psychologist who suggested conversion therapy has since been struck off for malpractice for doing so...so it feels like Ann wrote an article in support of something, without more research herself, as Jamie said...research into what would be involved in conversion therapy and how it makes a person feel ashamed of who they are in their sexuality...something which is so abhorrent that I’m sure Ann wouldn’t believe her God and beliefs would feel it had any positive values at all to any human being...

I get that you read the article and I respect your take on it. But do you really think the OP read the article?

No, they just read it in another thread that was locked and decided to call scum, it's not helpful in any way shape or form to read a one-liner and call people names.

I think this thread has opened up a very interesting topic that not a lot of people knew about so maybe it's a good thing that Ann writes such articles? She's not exactly out on the street dragging gay people into therapy is she?

[Tom4784]

Conversion therapy is not unlike a psychological version of self harming, we would never think 'oh well, if he thinks it'll help him, let him open a vein' It's dangerous and when it escalates it'll likely end badly.

Nobody should encourage and/or endorse anyone going through with practices that don't work and often results in increased chances of suicide for the people who are victimised by these practices.

The only way people who are unhappy with their sexuality (which is, let's face it, often because of outside factors) will ever find happiness is with acceptance of who they are. There's no sexuality change operation and there never will be. Sexuality is just a part of who we are, if it could be changed we would have likely found out how by now.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

Your opinion then is a problem and does not reflect you in a light that is better than the one you are shining on Ann. :shrug:

so calling someone scum for having disgusting views and morals is wrong? what kind of backward logic sis??

[AnnieK]

Its not legal here is it? Although, I'm sure there will still be people willing to attempt it. I had never heard of it being practised here, thought it was just an American thing. Shocking.

[Vicky.]

Its not legal here is it? Although, I'm sure there will still be people willing to attempt it. I had never heard of it being practised here, thought it was just an American thing. Shocking.

It was until (oddly enough) the church of england called for it not to be

In 2007, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the main professional organisation of psychiatrists in the UK, issued a report stating that: "Evidence shows that LGB people are open to seeking help for mental health problems. However, they may be misunderstood by therapists who regard their homosexuality as the root cause of any presenting problem such as depression or anxiety. Unfortunately, therapists who behave in this way are likely to cause considerable distress. A small minority of therapists will even go so far as to attempt to change their client's sexual orientation. This can be deeply damaging. Although there are now a number of therapists and organisations in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can help homosexuals to become heterosexual, there is no evidence that such change is possible."

After reports of a Liverpool church starving individuals for three days as a means to "cure" their homosexuality, the Church of England announced it considers conversion therapy "fundamentally wrong" and demanded the Government ban it.

I know wiki can be edited by anyone, but I followed many links on here and it did seem to be accurate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

[Ammi]

I get that you read the article and I respect your take on it. But do you really think the OP read the article?

No, they just read it in another thread that was locked and decided to call scum, it's not helpful in any way shape or form to read a one-liner and call people names.

I think this thread has opened up a very interesting topic that not a lot of people knew about so maybe it's a good thing that Ann writes such articles? She's not exactly out on the street dragging gay people into therapy is she?

...I don’t know if they read the article but the OP did open it and ask for us all to discuss, which we are and as you say, Paula..its been very interesting to do so, so a good thread, I think...for me, I’m just trying to equate in my head any caring, religious person who would surely feel abhorred at anything that would cause anyone to feel ashamed of who they were...and the writing of any article, which appeared to support in the way of...’they have a right to../...it’s something that should be offered...’....I mean for anyone who did hate themselves because of their sexuality and sought therapy..?...then surely that therapy would involve working on positives, to enable them to feel less self-hating, to feel all the very opposite things of shame...I understand Ann’s feelings about the equality of therapies being available but the nature of the therapy itself in terms of ethics is also essential to consider, and Like Jamie’s, I’m surprised she didn’t consider more before penning an article...


...and no, the only person ive seen her dragging, is Anton du Beke around the dance floor in Strictly...:laugh:..

[Ammi]

Conversion therapy is not unlike a psychological version of self harming, we would never think 'oh well, if he thinks it'll help him, let him open a vein' It's dangerous and when it escalates it'll likely end badly.

Nobody should encourage and/or endorse anyone going through with practices that don't work and often results in increased chances of suicide for the people who are victimised by these practices.

The only way people who are unhappy with their sexuality (which is, let's face it, often because of outside factors) will ever find happiness is with acceptance of who there. There's no sexuality change operation and there never will be. Sexuality is just a part of who we are, if it could be changed we would have likely found out how by now.

..yeah that is exactly what it is, it’s reinforcing that, that person is right to hate themselves and encouraging shame, which will only ever create more self hate and as you say, until a possible extreme of suicide may be the end result...so extremely unethical, un-Christian, un-Catholic and really Un everything...nothing positive at all in any way...

[Paula D]

...I don’t know if they read the article but the OP did open it and ask for us all to discuss, which we are and as you say, Paula..its been very interesting to do so, so a good thread, I think...for me, I’m just trying to equate in my head any caring, religious person who would surely feel abhorred at anything that would cause anyone to feel ashamed of who they were...and the writing of any article, which appeared to support in the way of...’they have a right to../...it’s something that should be offered...’....I mean for anyone who did hate themselves because of their sexuality and sought therapy..?...then surely that therapy would involve working on positives, to enable them to feel less self-hating, to feel all the very opposite things of shame...I understand Ann’s feelings about the equality of therapies being available but the nature of the therapy itself in terms of ethics is also essential to consider, and Like Jamie’s, I’m surprised she didn’t consider more before penning an article...


...and no, the only person ive seen her dragging, is Anton du Beke around the dance floor in Strictly...:laugh:..


I have read it and honestly I don't see why it's such a big deal. She's simply stating an opinion, not at all suggesting that people should be forced into something.

[Tom4784]

I have read it and honestly I don't see why it's such a big deal. She's simply stating an opinion, not at all suggesting that people should be forced into something.

All opinions are open for criticism, we are merely employing our right to criticise something we disagree with.

[Paula D]

All opinions are open for criticism, we are merely employing our right to criticise something we disagree with.

Totally agree, I've no problem with that. Do have a problem with someone reading a line and calling people scum. That's all.

[Tom4784]

Totally agree, I've no problem with that. Do have a problem with someone reading a line and calling people scum. That's all.

It's an opinion, you can disagree with it but you can't silence it.

[Paula D]

It's an opinion, you can disagree with it but you can't silence it.

That's probably the most ironic post I've ever read on here. :rolleyes:

It's a good one though, I'll just copy and paste it in future.

[Tom4784]

That's probably the most ironic post I've ever read on here. :rolleyes:

It's a good one though, I'll just copy and paste it in future.

Care to explain why? It's basically all I've said for the past week or so so please, explain.

[Marches]

It's an opinion, you can disagree with it but you can't silence it.

But you said in another thread Shane was allowed to silence Ann ‘because free speech’ free speech paradox

[Paula D]

Care to explain why? It's basically all I've said for the past week or so so please, explain.

But you said in another thread Shane was allowed to silence Ann ‘because free speech’ free speech paradox

Exactly this ^.

Would you care to explain is more like it?

[Tom4784]

But you said in another thread Shane was allowed to silence Ann ‘because free speech’ free speech paradox

Congratulations on completely butchering what I said for your own agenda, if you've become desperate enough to lie about what I've said then that says it all, doesn't it?

I said Shane was allowed to oppose Ann's opinion because of free speech, just like she is to his, the problem is that you, like so many others it seems, does not understand that disagreeing with someone's views is not the same as trying to silence them and pressing on with that mentality is in fact an attempt to silence opposition to Ann's views by debasing their right to reply as nothing more than an attack, not them sharing their own views.

If you are going to try to use my words against me, at least get them right next time.

[Tom4784]

Exactly this ^.

Would you care to explain is more like it?

A fair bit of advice, don't jump on posts that try to **** on people you dislike without bothering to know whether it's true or not.

[Marches]

Manipulating people into dismissing someone when they say an opinion is inadvertently silencing someone and you said that was ok

Free speech isn’t as black and white as ‘you can speak = free speech!!!’ There is a grey area that people find loopholes around

[Tom4784]

Manipulating people into dismissing someone when they say an opinion is inadvertently silencing someone and you said that was ok

Free speech isn’t as black and white as ‘you can speak = free speech!!!’ There is a grey area that people find loopholes around

This is what we call both a reach and a misunderstanding of what freedom of speech is.

Freedom of Speech is very simple, unless you are preaching hatred or inciting violence then it typically comes under the umbrella of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the right to share your opinion and the right for others to have their views on those opinions and vice versa.

It's not the right to force people to accept or respect what you have to say, you have the right to say it but, unless they breach one of the previous exemptions I mentioned, anyone is free to not accept or respect or do what they want with that opinion. This is the part you seem to struggle with.

Trying to make out that Shane is actively manipulating the house into silencing Ann is nothing but an incredible reach on your part. Nobody is telling Ann what to think or preventing her from speaking, no matter how much you tie yourself in knots trying to make that a reality, it's simply not the case.

This is just you doing what I mentioned before, debasing people's rights to respond and right to freedom of speech just because you don't like what they have to say.

[bots]

Its not legal here is it? Although, I'm sure there will still be people willing to attempt it. I had never heard of it being practised here, thought it was just an American thing. Shocking.

Shouldn't laugh but couldn't help myself :laugh:

[Paula D]

This is what we call both a reach and a misunderstanding of what freedom of speech is.

Freedom of Speech is very simple, unless you are preaching hatred or inciting violence then it typically comes under the umbrella of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the right to share your opinion and the right for others to have their views on those opinions and vice versa.

It's not the right to force people to accept or respect what you have to say, you have the right to say it but, unless they breach one of the previous exemptions I mentioned, anyone is free to not accept or respect or do what they want with that opinion. This is the part you seem to struggle with.

Trying to make out that Shane is actively manipulating the house into silencing Ann is nothing but an incredible reach on your part. Nobody is telling Ann what to think or preventing her from speaking, no matter how much you tie yourself in knots trying to make that a reality, it's simply not the case.

This is just you doing what I mentioned before, debasing people's rights to respond and right to freedom of speech just because you don't like what they have to say.

Ah now, this is where you've completely walked yourself into it. Shane is definitely very actively trying to manipulate the house, the whole house has stated so except for Malika. And that is preaching hatred. He wants people to hate Ann. Why else would he start throwing out random facts and figures about her past at people? What has any of that got to do with their time in the house?

You can try tying yourself up in knots all you like trying to pretend he's simply disagreeing with her views but every single one of the people who are living with him in the house don't think so. :smug:

[Cherie]

Ah now, this is where you've completely walked yourself into it. Shane is definitely very actively trying to manipulate the house, the whole house has stated so except for Malika. And that is preaching hatred. He wants people to hate Ann. Why else would he start throwing out random facts and figures about her past at people? What has any of that got to do with their time in the house?

You can try tying yourself up in knots all you like trying to pretend he's simply disagreeing with her views but every single one of the people who are living with him in the house don't think so. :smug:

:smug:

[Tom4784]

Ah now, this is where you've completely walked yourself into it. Shane is definitely very actively trying to manipulate the house, the whole house has stated so except for Malika. And that is preaching hatred. He wants people to hate Ann. Why else would he start throwing out random facts and figures about her past at people? What has any of that got to do with their time in the house?

You can try tying yourself up in knots all you like trying to pretend he's simply disagreeing with her views but every single one of the people who are living with him in the house don't think so. :smug:

No, it really isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

Perhaps you should try to understand what hate speech and preaching hatred before you post and 'walk yourself right into it.'

It's an incredible reach and very silly to make out that Shane is doing anything but utilising his own right to freedom of speech, Ann and anyone else is free to do the same. I know you dislike freedom of speech when it doesn't benefit you but please try to understand what preaching hatred and hate speech is before you try to use it in an argument.

[Tom4784]

:smug:

Again, never a good idea to blindly agree with someone just because it's against someone you mutually dislike. Questioning your friends is not a bad thing.

[Twosugars]

Totally agree, I've no problem with that. Do have a problem with someone reading a line and calling people scum. That's all.

There is another thread out there by Bones calling Malika scum. I didn't see you objecting there.
Bones explained it was cleared by moderators who allowed such terms re. HMs.
Personally, I think it brings us closer to the gutter, but a rule is a rule, so if it's ok for Malika, why not for Ann?

[Cherie]

Again, never a good idea to blindly agree with someone just because it's against someone you mutually dislike. Questioning your friends is not a bad thing.

Are you preaching to me how to behave. I don’t know Paula D anymore than I know you

[Cherie]

There is another thread out there by Bones calling Malika scum. I didn't see you objecting there.
Bones explained it was cleared by moderators who allowed such terms re. HMs.
Personally, I think it brings us closer to the gutter, but a rule is a rule, so if it's ok for Malika, why not for Ann?

I agree scum is a word that should be used in very extreme cases

[Paula D]

No, it really isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

Perhaps you should try to understand what hate speech and preaching hatred before you post and 'walk yourself right into it.'

It's an incredible reach and very silly to make out that Shane is doing anything but utilising his own right to freedom of speech, Ann and anyone else is free to do the same. I know you dislike freedom of speech when it doesn't benefit you but please try to understand what preaching hatred and hate speech is before you try to use it in an argument.

Where did I say hate speech?? Changing the wording now? I said preaching hatred. Don't even try pulling out your Wikipedia definitions.

Again, if anyone can answer the question what exactly is Shane J's motive in telling everyone in the house Ann's life history then maybe I'll believe it's not trying to turn them against her. He wants people to hate her. That's preaching hatred.

[Paula D]

There is another thread out there by Bones calling Malika scum. I didn't see you objecting there.
Bones explained it was cleared by moderators who allowed such terms re. HMs.
Personally, I think it brings us closer to the gutter, but a rule is a rule, so if it's ok for Malika, why not for Ann?

Sorry I don't have time to follow every single thread on here, I certainly didn't go agreeing with it did I?

[Vicky.]

There is another thread out there by Bones calling Malika scum. I didn't see you objecting there.
Bones explained it was cleared by moderators who allowed such terms re. HMs.
Personally, I think it brings us closer to the gutter, but a rule is a rule, so if it's ok for Malika, why not for Ann?

Yeah, my words were taken a little too literally there. There had been a post made where the member called Malika fans scum. I said that insulting fans was not allowed but insulting housemates was (within reason). Of course its fine to criticize housemates BUT, just random posts of 'X is a bitch' or something add nothing at all to the forum. So insults are fine within reason, but preferable when part of a larger post. if that makes sense.

[Paula D]

Yeah, my words were taken a little too literally there. There had been a post made where the member called Malika fans scum. I said that insulting fans was not allowed but insulting housemates was (within reason). Of course its fine to criticize housemates BUT, just random posts of 'X is a bitch' or something add nothing at all to the forum. So insults are fine within reason, but preferable when part of a larger post. if that makes sense.

Like the OP of this thread??

[Marches]

No, it really isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

Perhaps you should try to understand what hate speech and preaching hatred before you post and 'walk yourself right into it.'

It's an incredible reach and very silly to make out that Shane is doing anything but utilising his own right to freedom of speech, Ann and anyone else is free to do the same. I know you dislike freedom of speech when it doesn't benefit you but please try to understand what preaching hatred and hate speech is before you try to use it in an argument.

He is getting people to hate Ann. Therefore he is preaching hated and as such is a violation of free speech. He probably wouldn’t be convicted as such because he’s essentially loop holed the system but he knows exactly what he’s doing

[Tom4784]

Where did I say hate speech?? Changing the wording now? I said preaching hatred. Don't even try pulling out your Wikipedia definitions.

Again, if anyone can answer the question what exactly is Shane J's motive in telling everyone in the house Ann's life history then maybe I'll believe it's not trying to turn them against her. He wants people to hate her. That's preaching hatred.

Hate speech and preaching hate is a similar thing, they both come under hate speech laws.

I love the last line of your first point 'don't even TRY to use facts against me, Sonny Jim!'

It doesn't matter what his motive is any more than it matters what motivates Ann to hate dislike Megan Markle, it's their opinion, you can question it and have an opinion on it but you are trying to make out that if anyone can't see into his mind and explain his actions then your opinion of the situation is fact and that's wrong. You can't say it's a fact that he is preaching hatred any more than someone can say it's a fact that she's a racist.

Well except for the fact that what Shane is doing is not preaching hated. You can try to make out that it is all you like but the facts are against you.

[Vicky.]

Like the OP of this thread??

But this thread actually has something to talk about. If this thread had simply been 'ann is scum' and nothing else to it, then it would likely be closed as theres no conversation to be had there.

Its a quite difficult balancing act moderating this forum. We don;t want to shut down peoples opinions but at the same time we want proper discussions, not just threads full of one word posts and insults.

Also this thread was made as I closed the other one that was talking about this. When I closed it I did specifically say that if anyone wants to discuss it further then remake a thread about it.

[Niamh.]

He is getting people to hate Ann. Therefore he is preaching hated and as such is a violation of free speech. He probably wouldn’t be convicted as such because he’s essentially loop holed the system but he knows exactly what he’s doing

I don't think bitching about another HM on BB constitutes as Hate Speech, if it did, almost every HM ever would be locked up by now :laugh:

[Paula D]

Hate speech and preaching hate is a similar thing, they both come under hate speech laws.

I love the last line of your first point 'don't even TRY to use facts against me, Sonny Jim!'

It doesn't matter what his motive is any more than it matters what motivates Ann to hate dislike Megan Markle, it's their opinion, you can question it and have an opinion on it but you are trying to make out that if anyone can't see into his mind and explain his actions then your opinion of the situation is fact and that's wrong. You can't say it's a fact that he is preaching hatred any more than someone can say it's a fact that she's a racist.

Well except for the fact that what Shane is doing is not preaching hated. You can try to make out that it is all you like but the facts are against you.

Oh do carry on, so your opinion is fact now but mine isn't?

Fine, whatever, don't have any time for this crap. :shrug:

[Tom4784]

He is getting people to hate Ann. Therefore he is preaching hated and as such is a violation of free speech. He probably wouldn’t be convicted as such because he’s essentially loop holed the system but he knows exactly what he’s doing

Your views of what constitutes preaching hatred is as wonky as your definition of what freedom of speech is. You can keep twisting things but it doesn't make anything you say factual. Ann's freedom of speech is unimpeded in that house, fact, Shane is not preaching hate by any definition or law in any country in the world, that's not a loophole, that's a fact.

These are your opinions, you are more than entitled to them but the facts of the matter are against you.

[Tom4784]

Oh do carry on, so your opinion is fact now but mine isn't?

Fine, whatever, don't have any time for this crap. :shrug:

I've never said my opinion is fact, I've simply stated my opinion and used the facts of hate speech and preaching to qualify what I'm saying. It's called making a solid argument.

[Tom4784]

Oh do carry on, so your opinion is fact now but mine isn't?

Fine, whatever, don't have any time for this crap. :shrug:

I've never said my opinion is fact, I've simply stated my opinion and used the facts of hate speech and preaching to qualify what I'm saying. It's called making a solid argument based on facts.

[Marches]

I don't think bitching about another HM on BB constitutes as Hate Speech, if it did, almost every HM ever would be locked up by now :laugh:

Ofc they wouldn’t be convicted like I said but he’s installing hate on another housemate to both housemates and the public. It probably doesn’t fall under any laws but if the public and housemates are manipulated into disregarding someone’s words off of the basis of one persons opinion that doesn’t seem healthy for free speech now does it

[Vicky.]

Sorry I have to agree that Shane was trying to manipulate the house into shutting Ann down, and she had not even done anything..he did this randomly. He then realized it would not work so stopped that rubbish. Am sure he thought he could get Wayne to attack easily...which was clearly what he was doing,. Might aswell have just came out and said 'go shout at Ann for opinions she has outside of the house that she has not brought up in here but I have suddenly decided its important but will not say anything to her myself'

[AnnieK]

I really don't think it is a serious as preaching hate. Shane seemed to want to get Wayne to confront Ann but that could be the way it was edited. I don't think he would have said much to Amanda that night as he had tried in the past and she was having none of it. In my opinion, I think Shane was trying to let them know about Ann's more controversial views so they didn't think she is just a nice little old lady in his view. Wayne didn't seem to know about her voting history, but as it happens now he does its not changed muchas far as Wayne is concerned. Plus the night before, Wayne was ranting about Ann in the kitchen so I think Shane may have thought Wayne may have been a more captive audience and interested in what he knows about her.

[Niamh.]

Ofc they wouldn’t be convicted like I said but he’s installing hate on another housemate to both housemates and the public. It probably doesn’t fall under any laws but if the public and housemates are manipulated into disregarding someone’s words off of the basis of one persons opinion that doesn’t seem healthy for free speech now does it

It's not considered "hate Speech" though in the legal sense of the word so of course it falls into free speech, Shane was free to tell Wayne he thinks he should be challenging Anns anti-gay rights views as a gay man and Wayne was free to tell him no he has no issue with her

[Niamh.]

Sorry I have to agree that Shane was trying to manipulate the house into shutting Ann down, and she had not even done anything..he did this randomly. He then realized it would not work so stopped that rubbish. Am sure he thought he could get Wayne to attack easily...which was clearly what he was doing,. Might aswell have just came out and said 'go shout at Ann for opinions she has outside of the house that she has not brought up in here but I have suddenly decided its important but will not say anything to her myself'

I do agree with that, all I was disagreeing with was that it's not a hate crime or hate speech in the legal sense of the word

[Paula D]

It's not considered "hate Speech" though in the legal sense of the word so of course it falls into free speech, Shane was free to tell Wayne he thinks he should be challenging Anns anti-gay rights views as a gay man and Wayne was free to tell him no he has no issue with her

We're not talking about the legal definition Niamh.

I disagree with you, no-one should be encouraging one person to attack another.

[Marches]

It's not considered "hate Speech" though in the legal sense of the word so of course it falls into free speech, Shane was free to tell Wayne he thinks he should be challenging Anns anti-gay rights views as a gay man and Wayne was free to tell him no he has no issue with her

Maybe I articulated myself poorly but I wasn’t trying to argue it was illegal hate speech. What Shane jenek was doing was wrong and gross manipulation

[Vicky.]

I do agree with that, all I was disagreeing with was that it's not a hate crime or hate speech in the legal sense of the word

Oh no, its not hate speech :laugh:

[Twosugars]

Yeah, my words were taken a little too literally there. There had been a post made where the member called Malika fans scum. I said that insulting fans was not allowed but insulting housemates was (within reason). Of course its fine to criticize housemates BUT, just random posts of 'X is a bitch' or something add nothing at all to the forum. So insults are fine within reason, but preferable when part of a larger post. if that makes sense.

I don't envy you and others on the staff. Moderating a lively forum is a tough gig. I moderated a forum and a chatroom in my time and it is a bitch of a job.
Stay strong and carry on :clap1:

[Greg!]

A mess at people attempting to defend this disgusting practice

[Marches]

A mess at people attempting to defend this disgusting practice

Has Ann’s support of conversion therapy even been mentioned in the house? It doesn’t work and causes psychological harm ofc I don’t agree with it I was just personally tired of seeing people defending Shane js bullying then seeing headlines saying he’s getting bullied :shrug:

[AnnieK]

A mess at people attempting to defend this disgusting practice

Don't think anyone in here has tried to defend it. I don't know how anyone could

[Paula D]

A mess at people attempting to defend this disgusting practice

Who's doing that? Please show us an example?

[Greg!]

Who's doing that? Please show us an example?

Read the thread yourself?

[Paula D]

Read the thread yourself?

I have done, no-one defending the use of conversion therapy at all.

[Greg!]

Try again

[Greg!]

Here are 2 examples of people defending or justifying it that Paula D must have missed

Can people read ? instead of just being happy to believe people who dont like her, this story is not so black and white, she wanted to help gays who didn't WANT to be gay,so maybe go and read up ,people at one time thought it would cure them the gay person WANTED the therepy. loving these new words converstion therapy oh how people are grasping at it,

She believes that people are entitled to get help if they have problems and that should also be afforded to gay people as well, at the time someone who was struggling with been gay or didnt want to be gay was not been given any help. When she worked at Samaritans they did not promote 'it is ok to be gay' to someone who hated or didnt want to be gay. That is why she agreed if gay people were struggling then they should have therapy like everybody else.

[Marches]

Well tbh I don’t think they’re defending it they’re just trying to highlight there’s no malice in what she believes like I think the op and certain people believe. Obviously it doesn’t work and it’s diabolical but it doesn’t come from a place of ‘fuk gays they suck’. As such for me it doesn’t attack her character and it shouldn’t for anyone else viewing imo

[Greg!]

all I'm saying is I'm slightly shocked at people justifying it

[Lstan]

I don't think bitching about another HM on BB constitutes as Hate Speech, if it did, almost every HM ever would be locked up by now :laugh:

YEP!

Indeed, I mean c'on most tune in to see the housemates b**** about each other thats why the producers put such a mix in there in there anyway.

[Kazanne]

Yeah, my words were taken a little too literally there. There had been a post made where the member called Malika fans scum. I said that insulting fans was not allowed but insulting housemates was (within reason). Of course its fine to criticize housemates BUT, just random posts of 'X is a bitch' or something add nothing at all to the forum. So insults are fine within reason, but preferable when part of a larger post. if that makes sense.

I agree I notice on DS they have a policy about what can be said about housemates, which I think is a good idea then we all know where we stand,something like this would be good.

With the new series of Celebrity Big Brother having started tonight we want to take the time to remind you that we want discussion on this forum to be constructive, civil and free from personal derogatory comments. What this means is that you can by all means voice how much you like / dislike a housemate and you can give criticism and your opinion as to why this might be. What we don't want to see are personal insults about appearance, homophobic or transphobic posts, sexist comments, comments about sexuality and how someone is a "slapper" or "slag" etc.

We have already had to take action against comments of this nature and this should go without saying really. Please keep the level of discourse civil, fun and remember that you are talking about other people.

If you have any questions regarding this you can PM or email us. You can also use the "flag" button to alert us to any posts you feel cross the lines that we've outlined here.

Let's keep this forum fun and productive and we hope you enjoy posting about the new series. Thank you.

[Ammi]

Sorry I have to agree that Shane was trying to manipulate the house into shutting Ann down, and she had not even done anything..he did this randomly. He then realized it would not work so stopped that rubbish. Am sure he thought he could get Wayne to attack easily...which was clearly what he was doing,. Might aswell have just came out and said 'go shout at Ann for opinions she has outside of the house that she has not brought up in here but I have suddenly decided its important but will not say anything to her myself'

...I can’t agree, Vicky...about Shane J trying to gain support to shut Ann down in the way that is referred to shutting down opinions etc...that would indicate that Ann was voicing opinions that he wanted to shut down, that there was something to shut down but she wasn’t and there wasn’t...and it wasn’t really Ann’s ‘opinions’ that he was trying to convey to some other housemates...(...which yes, I think wasn’t good at all and not for him to do..)...actively opposing legislations that bring equality goes a little beyond just having an opinion because of potential power and influence attached with that in a parliament position as Ann had, that would have a real affect on lives ...he was talking more about legislation and how Ann had opposed and casted votes against some of the freedoms that had enabled Wayne and Amanda to live their lives with their partners as that have done and do today.../...he obviously felt very frustrated and yeah maybe very negative toward Ann in that evening, so didn’t act great, I agree...but he didn’t try to shut her down or encourage anyone else to because there wasn’t anything to shut down, in that context...no discussions had taken place...

[Vicky.]

...I can’t agree, Vicky...about Shane J trying to gain support to shut Ann down in the way that is referred to shutting down opinions etc...that would indicate that Ann was voicing opinions that he wanted to shut down, that there was something to shut down but she wasn’t and there wasn’t...and it wasn’t really Ann’s ‘opinions’ that he was trying to convey to some other housemates...(...which yes, I think wasn’t good at all and not for him to do..)...actively opposing legislations that bring equality goes a little beyond just having an opinion because of potential power and influence attached with that in a parliament position as Ann had, that would have a real affect on lives ...he was talking more about legislation and how Ann had opposed and casted votes against some of the freedoms that had enabled Wayne and Amanda to live their lives with their partners as that have done and do today.../...he obviously felt very frustrated and yeah maybe very negative toward Ann in that evening, so didn’t act great, I agree...but he didn’t try to shut her down or encourage anyone else to because there wasn’t anything to shut down, in that context...no discussions had taken place...

Which is part of the problem tbh. She had not actually said or done anything. he was bringing up stuff from outside of the house, to try and get others to have a random go at her and turn against her..for seemingly no reason except to get people to attack her as he had randomly decided that her opinions were an issue (despite actually having a convo about her voting record and concluding that he disagreed with her but its her right to have those opinions). Was very odd behaviour

basically he was trying to shut her down and manipulate the housemates into turning against her...but for stuff she hadn't even said :laugh:

[Cherie]

Which is part of the problem tbh. She had not actually said or done anything. he was bringing up stuff from outside of the house, to try and get others to have a random go at her and turn against her..for seemingly no reason except to get people to attack her as he had randomly decided that her opinions were an issue (despite actually having a convo about her voting record and concluding that he disagreed with her but its her right to have those opinions). Was very odd behaviour

basically he was trying to shut her down and manipulate the housemates into turning against her...but for stuff she hadn't even said :laugh:

:clap1:

[poppsywoppsy]

Which is part of the problem tbh. She had not actually said or done anything. he was bringing up stuff from outside of the house, to try and get others to have a random go at her and turn against her..for seemingly no reason except to get people to attack her as he had randomly decided that her opinions were an issue (despite actually having a convo about her voting record and concluding that he disagreed with her but its her right to have those opinions). Was very odd behaviour

basically he was trying to shut her down and manipulate the housemates into turning against her...but for stuff she hadn't even said :laugh:

I feel Shane tried to put his spin on whatever in Anne's past he could.

He can't speak to Ann because she can out think him, so he gets lost for words.

Did he forget the cameras caught his wrangling and scheming time and time again. He damned himself, he does not have any support now so cannot use his ploy of sitting back and letting others do his dirty work.

He is a first class rat.

[Kazanne]

Which is part of the problem tbh. She had not actually said or done anything. he was bringing up stuff from outside of the house, to try and get others to have a random go at her and turn against her..for seemingly no reason except to get people to attack her as he had randomly decided that her opinions were an issue (despite actually having a convo about her voting record and concluding that he disagreed with her but its her right to have those opinions). Was very odd behaviour

basically he was trying to shut her down and manipulate the housemates into turning against her...but for stuff she hadn't even said :laugh:

:thumbs:

[Crimson Dynamo]

i just saw this in another thread but it got locked so i’m continuing the discussion here teehee

what are your thoughts?

in MY opinion she’s scum

Do you know anything about it?

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

Do you know anything about it?

don’t need to know anything about it

the name gives it away sis

‘conversion’ therapy

gays do not need to be converted and anyone that thinks they do, or supports the idea in any shape or form is SCUM

https://78.media.tumblr.com/f9000d781c4c6f7f3eef60ffcca07e07/tumblr_oj77aaGJB21vbcnq8o1_500.gif

[Vanessa]

don’t need to know anything about it

the name gives it away sis

‘conversion’ therapy

gays do not need to be converted and anyone that thinks they do, or supports the idea in any shape or form is SCUM

https://78.media.tumblr.com/f9000d781c4c6f7f3eef60ffcca07e07/tumblr_oj77aaGJB21vbcnq8o1_500.gif
:clap1:

[bots]

don’t need to know anything about it

the name gives it away sis

‘conversion’ therapy

gays do not need to be converted and anyone that thinks they do, or supports the idea in any shape or form is SCUM


then equally those that do support it are entitled to say that those that disagree with it are SCUM .... do you not see where that ends up?

[joeysteele]

...I can’t agree, Vicky...about Shane J trying to gain support to shut Ann down in the way that is referred to shutting down opinions etc...that would indicate that Ann was voicing opinions that he wanted to shut down, that there was something to shut down but she wasn’t and there wasn’t...and it wasn’t really Ann’s ‘opinions’ that he was trying to convey to some other housemates...(...which yes, I think wasn’t good at all and not for him to do..)...actively opposing legislations that bring equality goes a little beyond just having an opinion because of potential power and influence attached with that in a parliament position as Ann had, that would have a real affect on lives ...he was talking more about legislation and how Ann had opposed and casted votes against some of the freedoms that had enabled Wayne and Amanda to live their lives with their partners as that have done and do today.../...he obviously felt very frustrated and yeah maybe very negative toward Ann in that evening, so didn’t act great, I agree...but he didn’t try to shut her down or encourage anyone else to because there wasn’t anything to shut down, in that context...no discussions had taken place...


Superb post.

I saw it near all that way too.

I only wish he had just raised what issues he wished with Ann herself.
That's where he went wrong.

I've said all along had he done so,Ann would have discussed it with him,I'd also dare bet she would have jumped at the chance to.

Love or hate her, agree with her or not,Ann has never backed off from stating and restating her opinions,likely ever.

[Vicky.]

Superb post.

I saw it near all that way too.

I only wish he had just raised what issues he wished with Ann herself.
That's where he went wrong.

I've said all along had he done so,Ann would have discussed it with him,I'd also dare bet she would have jumped at the chance to.

Love or hate her, agree with her or not,Ann has never backed off from stating and restating her opinions,likely ever.

Indeed. This is why I was disappointed with him. if he has issues with her, he should go to her face, not try and get other random people to attack her. Thats childish and ridiculous, IMO.

[jaxie]

Sorry I have to agree that Shane was trying to manipulate the house into shutting Ann down, and she had not even done anything..he did this randomly. He then realized it would not work so stopped that rubbish. Am sure he thought he could get Wayne to attack easily...which was clearly what he was doing,. Might aswell have just came out and said 'go shout at Ann for opinions she has outside of the house that she has not brought up in here but I have suddenly decided its important but will not say anything to her myself'

That's exactly what he did in my view too. And it seems like Amanda and Wayne thought so too.

[montblanc]

Which is part of the problem tbh. She had not actually said or done anything. he was bringing up stuff from outside of the house, to try and get others to have a random go at her and turn against her..for seemingly no reason except to get people to attack her as he had randomly decided that her opinions were an issue (despite actually having a convo about her voting record and concluding that he disagreed with her but its her right to have those opinions). Was very odd behaviour

basically he was trying to shut her down and manipulate the housemates into turning against her...but for stuff she hadn't even said :laugh:

I don't think he's necessarily trying to turn people against her but it maybe the fact that the other housemates (Amanda, Ashley, Jess, etc.) are just sweeping her views under the rug which is easy for them to do because they don't affect them. It's probably really frustrating to see everyone around him getting on with Ann saying things like "it's her opinion, whatever" for three weeks when her views/voting records have no impact on their lives as they are heterosexuals. As for Amanda and Wayne, they are part of an older generation and had to learn throughout their lives to just deal with people like Ann and that carried into the house. Shane J. doesn't feel like he needs to have respect for someone that has previously voted & advocated to make gay people's lives "less than" that of a straight person's and rightfully so. He's been respectful to her and her views during their stay and he's probably just had enough of it now.

[Marches]

I don't think he's necessarily trying to turn people against her but it maybe the fact that the other housemates (Amanda, Ashley, Jess, etc.) are just sweeping her views under the rug which is easy for them to do because they don't affect them. It's probably really frustrating to see everyone around him getting on with Ann saying things like "it's her opinion, whatever" for three weeks when her views/voting records have no impact on their lives as they are heterosexuals. As for Amanda and Wayne, they are part of an older generation and had to learn throughout their lives to just deal with people like Ann and that carried into the house. Shane J. doesn't feel like he needs to have respect for someone that has previously voted & advocated to make gay people's lives "less than" that of a straight person's and rightfully so. He's been respectful to her and her views during their stay and he's probably just had enough of it now.

Ann didn’t win those votes and she hasn’t brought them up in the house, they’re not legal. Funnily enough I find those who didn’t bring it up 24/7 to be decent people when hounding someone like that won’t acomplish anything. Keep in mind Shane j is fully aware of this he’s just trying to push a malicious agenda against a not malicious person with some quite obtuse views that she hasn’t forced down anyone’s throats

[joeysteele]

Indeed. This is why I was disappointed with him. if he has issues with her, he should go to her face, not try and get other random people to attack her. Thats childish and ridiculous, IMO.

I don't think he was wanting others to attack her.
Many of us,myself at times particularly can be childish.
That's not a crime.

I saw it more as trying to gain others support to challenge the views of Ann.
Not attack her.

There's a misconstrued view he wanted Wayne to talk to Ann on the issues.
Wayne even said to Amanda Shane hadn't asked him to do so at all.

I agree he should have gone directly to Ann himself.

A lot of people however, (and I'm not saying this is the case,just a thought),like to sound out back up for their own stance,before they set out to addresss controversial issues with another or others.

[Ammi]

Which is part of the problem tbh. She had not actually said or done anything. he was bringing up stuff from outside of the house, to try and get others to have a random go at her and turn against her..for seemingly no reason except to get people to attack her as he had randomly decided that her opinions were an issue (despite actually having a convo about her voting record and concluding that he disagreed with her but its her right to have those opinions). Was very odd behaviour

basically he was trying to shut her down and manipulate the housemates into turning against her...but for stuff she hadn't even said :laugh:


...I still don’t see the shutting down thing, Vicky because there was nothing to shut down...that’s the thing isn’t it, like you say there was no communication happening between them to shut down...hmmm, what I felt I saw was..that it wasn’t ‘random’ as such with his behaviour that night, it was more a build up of things, maybe of disapprovals Ann had shown, with facial expression etc, calling his and Andrew’s playfight ‘obscene’ and such the like, there were a few things, I can’t recall them all...and maybe his emotions were quite on the surface because of Andrew being evicted and feeling the loss of his closest friend in the house...so yeAh, they had, had a previous conversation in the early days but in that kind of environment, it’s easy to see how people still can have little blips, I think that’s just a human quality
so I don’t find that bit odd as such at all...he had a blip, Amanda took him to task and told him what for and that was that, they were all brilliant and gracious the next day with what I felt were sincere apologies from him...and gracious acceptances from them...

...anyways I’ve quoted Joey’s post as well because I completely agree with him in that I wished he had expressed what he was feeling at that moment to Ann herself, which is where he was in the wrong completely...in balance of his character though with what he’s displayed in the house for the most part, I do feel personally that it was just all a bit of a blip that night, so don’t really feel disappointment with him beyond that...he had a bad day is what I think....





Superb post.

I saw it near all that way too.

I only wish he had just raised what issues he wished with Ann herself.
That's where he went wrong.

I've said all along had he done so,Ann would have discussed it with him,I'd also dare bet she would have jumped at the chance to.

Love or hate her, agree with her or not,Ann has never backed off from stating and restating her opinions,likely ever.

[montblanc]

Ann didn’t win those votes and she hasn’t brought them up in the house, they’re not legal. Funnily enough I find those who didn’t bring it up 24/7 to be decent people when hounding someone like that won’t acomplish anything. Keep in mind Shane j is fully aware of this he’s just trying to push a malicious agenda against a not malicious person with some quite obtuse views that she hasn’t forced down anyone’s throats

it doesn't matter if they didn't win she still voted for them and Ann hasn't been a saint in there either. Ann makes snide comments, faces, rolls her eyes, etc. at anything that coincidently have to do with the LGBT or women. The moment with Wayne & Shane J. showcased that. She's continuously showing her disapproval towards people like Shane J. and he's just getting fed up of it.

[montblanc]

it was more a build up of things, maybe of disapprovals Ann had shown, with facial expression etc, calling his and Andrew’s playfight ‘obscene’ and such the like

.

[bots]

it doesn't matter if they didn't win she still voted for them and Ann hasn't been a saint in there either. Ann makes snide comments, faces, rolls her eyes, etc. at anything that coincidently have to do with the LGBT or women. The moment with Wayne & Shane J. showcased that. She's continuously showing her disapproval towards people like Shane J. and he's just getting fed up of it.

Are you familiar with the concept of democracy? People with opposing opinions vote and the majority wins the vote. What they were voting for then becomes law and EVERYONE abides by it. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it. Brexit was a very clear example.

Democracy encompasses all opinion ... Ann was part of that process, and a very valuable part too.

[chuff me dizzy]

Can people read ? instead of just being happy to believe people who dont like her, this story is not so black and white, she wanted to help gays who didn't WANT to be gay,so maybe go and read up ,people at one time thought it would cure them the gay person WANTED the therepy. loving these new words converstion therapy oh how people are grasping at it,

Facts are not allowed and totally ignored :idc:

[Ammi]

...I think he’s also a bit in love with Andrew and the poor guy in turmoil with his beloved gone..:laugh:.../...poor Shane...

[pontyboi]

The first man I ever had a relationship with went through this. He was taken away from his family in his teens actually I think he was 12, strapped to a bed, given electro shock treatment, put in ice baths and it damaged him for life.

[montblanc]

Are you familiar with the concept of democracy? People with opposing opinions vote and the majority wins the vote. What they were voting for then becomes law and EVERYONE abides by it. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it. Brexit was a very clear example.

Democracy encompasses all opinion ... Ann was part of that process, and a very valuable part too.

how is this related to my post :skull:

[joeysteele]

Here are 2 examples of people defending or justifying it that Paula D must have missed

It mystifies me too Greg.
It's one of the last things worthy of support or defence in any context.

[Vicky.]

I don't think he's necessarily trying to turn people against her but it maybe the fact that the other housemates (Amanda, Ashley, Jess, etc.) are just sweeping her views under the rug which is easy for them to do because they don't affect them. It's probably really frustrating to see everyone around him getting on with Ann saying things like "it's her opinion, whatever" for three weeks when her views/voting records have no impact on their lives as they are heterosexuals. As for Amanda and Wayne, they are part of an older generation and had to learn throughout their lives to just deal with people like Ann and that carried into the house. Shane J. doesn't feel like he needs to have respect for someone that has previously voted & advocated to make gay people's lives "less than" that of a straight person's and rightfully so. He's been respectful to her and her views during their stay and he's probably just had enough of it now.

He was basically telling Wayne to go attack her for her voting record. Of course he was purposely trying to get people to turn against her. Its frustrating to watch as it seemed to be brought up randomly, but with LF we could have known the context of it all and it might totally change the story. From what we have seen though, it seemed random and manipulative.

[poppsywoppsy]

it doesn't matter if they didn't win she still voted for them and Ann hasn't been a saint in there either. Ann makes snide comments, faces, rolls her eyes, etc. at anything that coincidently have to do with the LGBT or women. The moment with Wayne & Shane J. showcased that. She's continuously showing her disapproval towards people like Shane J. and he's just getting fed up of it.

We take a lighter view, when Ann rolls her eyes or covers her face, we find it hilarious. In fact we wait for it, predict it, "Oh Ann's going to cover up in a minute" and when she does, we laugh.

Jess and Ashley laughed too. You cannot say Shane hasn't baited her into it either, then he laughs at the outcome.

Her demonstrations in the Diary Room are also funny, then the next minute, there she is doing the most ridiculous things.

Where is the sense of humour here. It is all angst, wringing of hands and a witch hunt, whilst Ann is having the time of her life.

[bots]

how is this related to my post :skull:

it doesn't matter if they didn't win she still voted for them and Ann hasn't been a saint in there either. Ann makes snide comments, faces, rolls her eyes, etc. at anything that coincidently have to do with the LGBT or women. The moment with Wayne & Shane J. showcased that. She's continuously showing her disapproval towards people like Shane J. and he's just getting fed up of it.

thats why, Ann was a democratically elected MP, she actually had the best attendance record of any MP while she was representing her constituency. Democracy does not revolve around everyone having the same opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and not to be hounded for holding it.

[pontyboi]

He was basically telling Wayne to go attack her for her voting record. Of course he was purposely trying to get people to turn against her. Its frustrating to watch as it seemed to be brought up randomly, but with LF we could have known the context of it all and it might totally change the story. From what we have seen though, it seemed random and manipulative.

Ann has been an entertaining housemate but how can you back up her opinions which are something you would find in Afghanistan?

[Vicky.]

I saw it more as trying to gain others support to challenge the views of Ann.
Not attack her. Why on earth does he need the support of others to challenge her though? That makes it sound even worse tbh. I cannot bring up something thats bothering me unless I have managed to convince everyone around me to back me up when I say it? Nah.

There's a misconstrued view he wanted Wayne to talk to Ann on the issues.
Wayne even said to Amanda Shane hadn't asked him to do so at all.

Its not misconstrued at all. It was clear what he was doing and he did want Wayne to go and start.

I agree he should have gone directly to Ann himself.

I would have respected him for doing this. Very near the start of the show he had this out with Ann about her voting record, and it seemed a mature convo where they were polar opposites but both respected each others right to an opinion.

I am not bothered at all about him challenging her on her views. I like conversations about difficult topics. I just dislike the childish sneaking around behind someones back. Seems the rest of the housemates (bar Malika) agree too.

[Vicky.]

Ann has been an entertaining housemate but how can you back up her opinions which are something you would find in Afghanistan?

I don't back up her opinions? I think I disagree on her entire voting record tbh. Except maybe the shackling prisoners thing, as I know the context behind it and it was basically a...better to be handcuffed in hospital that give birth inside a prison thing. And they were not shackled during active labour either. And of course the prisoners are a flight risk. Apparently when it came out it turned out that the woman who was shackled had tried to escape twice already, including once trying to jump out of a window whilst pregnant.

[chuff me dizzy]

He was basically telling Wayne to go attack her for her voting record. Of course he was purposely trying to get people to turn against her. Its frustrating to watch as it seemed to be brought up randomly, but with LF we could have known the context of it all and it might totally change the story. From what we have seen though, it seemed random and manipulative.

Yes he was

[montblanc]

He was basically telling Wayne to go attack her for her voting record. Of course he was purposely trying to get people to turn against her. Its frustrating to watch as it seemed to be brought up randomly, but with LF we could have known the context of it all and it might totally change the story. From what we have seen though, it seemed random and manipulative.

i agree with you on the Wayne thing that was a bit out of order

[joeysteele]

The first man I ever had a relationship with went through this. He was taken away from his family in his teens actually I think he was 12, strapped to a bed, given electro shock treatment, put in ice baths and it damaged him for life.

Absolutely awful.

Beyond all decency and not in any way worthy of a scrap of support.
It really should be seen as assault.

[Ammi]

i agree with you on the Wayne thing that was a bit out of order

...yeah it was montblanc and I don’t defend that...but for for the most part, he’s respectful and communicates his opinions well, even in explaining the perspective of others if they have been upset or annoyed etc...which is why I feel, this wasn’t his ‘typical’ behaviour and for whatever reason, feeling very heightened emotions that evening...

[Vicky.]

Absolutely awful.

Beyond all decency and not in any worthy of a scrap of support.
It really should be seen as assault.

Surely it would be today..should have been then too. Electroshock treatment should never ever have been a thing. Plus this was on a ****ing 12 year old. Whoever did that should have been jailed for child abuse tbh

[montblanc]

We take a lighter view, when Ann rolls her eyes or covers her face, we find it hilarious. In fact we wait for it, predict it, "Oh Ann's going to cover up in a minute" and when she does, we laugh.

Jess and Ashley laughed too. You cannot say Shane hasn't baited her into it either, then he laughs at the outcome.

Her demonstrations in the Diary Room are also funny, then the next minute, there she is doing the most ridiculous things.

Where is the sense of humour here. It is all angst, wringing of hands and a witch hunt, whilst Ann is having the time of her life.

when someone has a background of voting against certain LGBT rights & then they roll their eyes, make faces, etc. at anything to do with the LGBT what makes you think the LGBT person wouldn't get offended? It's the context. And you can't use Jess or Ashley as examples because they aren't gay.

& it isn't about "having a sense of humor" because even though I strongly dislike Ann I can admit she has a lot of funny moments through out the series

[Vicky.]

when someone has a background of voting against certain LGBT rights & then they roll their eyes, make faces, etc. at anything to do with the LGBT what makes you think the LGBT person wouldn't get offended? It's the context. And you can't use Jess or Ashley as examples because they aren't gay.

& it isn't about "having a sense of humor" because even though I strongly dislike Ann I can admit she has a lot of funny moments through out the series
She does this at nearly everything though, its not only LGBT stuff. Any human contact, any expression of love/emotion, any swearing (even light language), any mention of being drunk, any request from BB to do a task, any noise while she is wanting quiet, any innuendo...anything at all :laugh:

[Ammi]

Surely it would be today..should have been then too. Electroshock treatment should never ever have been a thing. Plus this was on a ****ing 12 year old. Whoever did that should have been jailed for child abuse tbh

..no, I’ve known it to be used quite recently, in the last few years.../..not for homosexuality I have to say, for severe depression...

[Vicky.]

..no, I’ve known it to be used quite recently, in the last few years.../..not for homosexuality I have to say, for severe depression...

Shock treatment is still going? Jesus...

[joeysteele]

Surely it would be today..should have been then too. Electroshock treatment should never ever have been a thing. Plus this was on a ****ing 12 year old. Whoever did that should have been jailed for child abuse tbh

Absolutely right Vicky.
That was despicable what was carried out there.

[Ammi]

Shock treatment is still going? Jesus...

..the situation I know of was for bipolar.../.she eventually committed suicide...so well, it didn’t work..those awful shocks she went through...

[chuff me dizzy]

when someone has a background of voting against certain LGBT rights & then they roll their eyes, make faces, etc. at anything to do with the LGBT what makes you think the LGBT person wouldn't get offended? It's the context. And you can't use Jess or Ashley as examples because they aren't gay.

& it isn't about "having a sense of humor" because even though I strongly dislike Ann I can admit she has a lot of funny moments through out the series

Ann rolls her eyes at loud music ,what phobic is that or is it an "ist" And the last time i looked there was no law against rolling your eyes

[montblanc]

thats why, Ann was a democratically elected MP, she actually had the best attendance record of any MP while she was representing her constituency. Democracy does not revolve around everyone having the same opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and not to be hounded for holding it.

oh i think you misinterpreted my post. I wasn't saying that Ann doesn't have the right to her opinion/votes in the parliament, I was explaining why Shane J. would feel a type of way towards Ann because of her voting history.

[Kazanne]

She does this at nearly everything though, its not only LGBT stuff. Any human contact, any expression of love/emotion, any swearing (even light language), any mention of being drunk, any request from BB to do a task, any noise while she is wanting quiet, any innuendo...anything at all :laugh:

I did read that she had a detained retina ,I wonder if that affects her facial expressions sometimes.

[montblanc]

Ann rolls her eyes at loud music ,what phobic is that or is it an "ist" And the last time i looked there was no law against rolling your eyes

the context.

Ann rolling her eyes at loud music is different from rolling her eyes listening to a conversation between two gay men uplifting each other about their sexuality especially with her history in the parliament.

[Kazanne]

..the situation I know of was for bipolar.../.she eventually committed suicide...so well, it didn’t work..those awful shocks she went through...

Lots of people who have bi-polar commit suicide,I know someone who did,it must be an awful thing to have, to get that low

[Marches]

the context.

Ann rolling her eyes at loud music is different from rolling her eyes listening to a conversation between two gay men uplifting each other about their sexuality especially with her history in the parliament.

Not if she does it all the time

[montblanc]

Not if she does it all the time

it'd be different if the conversation was a joke but it was pretty serious conversation. it doesn't take a genius to figure out that she was rolling her eyes at their conversation topic & it's not as if she rolls her eyes for fun either :skull:

[chuff me dizzy]

the context.

Ann rolling her eyes at loud music is different from rolling her eyes listening to a conversation between two gay men uplifting each other about their sexuality especially with her history in the parliament.

Exactly the same roll :idc:

[montblanc]

Exactly the same roll :idc:

ok we'll just agree to disagree i guess

[Paula D]

it'd be different if the conversation was a joke but it was pretty serious conversation. it doesn't take a genius to figure out that she was rolling her eyes at their conversation topic & it's not as if she rolls her eyes for fun either :skull:Jesus you're really not going to drop it are you?

Ann rolls her eyes at EVERYONE, therefore it is not a homophobic action. Fact.

Not going to change no matter how many times you say it.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[montblanc]

Jesus you're really not going to drop it are you?

Ann rolls her eyes at EVERYONE, therefore it is not a homophobic action. Fact.

Not going to change no matter how many times you say it.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

alright

[Marsh.]

alright

That racist spits on ALL non-white people so he's not discriminating ALRIGHT!!!

[Alf]

it'd be different if the conversation was a joke but it was pretty serious conversation. it doesn't take a genius to figure out that she was rolling her eyes at their conversation topic & it's not as if she rolls her eyes for fun either :skull:Big Brother edits those eye rolls in.

[Marsh.]

Big Brother edits those eye rolls in.

I knew it!

I could see the pixellation on her face where the CGI fades in.

[poppsywoppsy]

when someone has a background of voting against certain LGBT rights & then they roll their eyes, make faces, etc. at anything to do with the LGBT what makes you think the LGBT person wouldn't get offended? It's the context. And you can't use Jess or Ashley as examples because they aren't gay.

& it isn't about "having a sense of humor" because even though I strongly dislike Ann I can admit she has a lot of funny moments through out the series

Oh please, if it was a programme about Gay rights, LGBT or other serious issues you would be right.

But it is not, it is an entertainment show. So many just want to feel morally superior whilst not knowing the basics of why, how, what Ann's reasons were, just that they want to score antiquated points.

So what if you are right, slap on the back, well done, you have surely shown it to Ann, good for you, hurray, and millions more of plaudits for showing little old Ann just how magnanimous you are when bringing up her past, voting records, mariage status, sexual habits and the kitchen sink.

OK noted, understood, underlined, gold star, woohoo, does it change anything which hasn't already been changed? A big fat NO. Will Ann change her mind Another big fat NO, will it bother Ann, yet another big fat NO.


CBB is a television reality show, the theme is the Year of the Woman, not Gay Rights, LGBT agendas and one Drag act.

There were many housemates who haven't whined on and on for something which they have already received. Gays have got it, what's the problem?

No, Gays are seriously in jeopardy of looking like they cannot accept what they already have and will instigate a witch hunt after an elderly woman who broke no laws, served her constituents as a MP for years and voted for her religious beliefs.

I salute those posters who have said they are Gay but will not let Shane's rabble rousing on social media and LGBTs agendas stop them from leading a very full & happy life and would abhor what has been happening in their name.

One last point, those who attack Ann at every turn might be very surprised that life does not begin and end in what's in your pants. It is only a part of life and one which seems to consume those who presumably are sexually active anyway, what more do you want? Demand demand demand, is all I have read on here, you do as we say or you are this or that. No we are not, you can't make us it by name calling or labeling. Some of the childish posts on here are pitiful, just pitiful yet they think we will say, Yes of course you are right. What might happen is that Gays could face a backlash because of their demands.

They are not the biggest group in the population yet by anymeans, yet make the loudest noises. There is a thing called a silent majority which is happy to accommodate all people, races, orientations and opinions, but to push them too far by the sort of behaviour that has gone on recently could very well be to the detriment of everything achieved by those who worked so hard to achieve them over the years.

[pontyboi]

Surely it would be today..should have been then too. Electroshock treatment should never ever have been a thing. Plus this was on a ****ing 12 year old. Whoever did that should have been jailed for child abuse tbh

It was assault.

The **** he told me as an 18 year old I was so shocked.

He went on to be Mr gay UK though so good for him.....the **** he described to me is like something you see on american horror story.

How can we support any of these issues? This isn't directed at you Vicky just at everyone I know if one of your children turned out gay you as a good person would not endorse them being made to have 1950s style electric shock treatment.

Ive loved how housemates have been able to talk freely this year it's made it a social experiment again but Ann to me is the female version of hitler.

[chuff me dizzy]

Oh please, if it was a programme about Gay rights, LGBT or other serious issues you would be right.

But it is not, it is an entertainment show. So many just want to feel morally superior whilst not knowing the basics of why, how, what Ann's reasons were, just that they want to score antiquated points.

So what if you are right, slap on the back, well done, you have surely shown it to Ann, good for you, hurray, and millions more of plaudits for showing little old Ann just how magnanimous you are when bringing up her past, voting records, mariage status, sexual habits and the kitchen sink.

OK noted, understood, underlined, gold star, woohoo, does it change anything which hasn't already been changed? A big fat NO. Will Ann change her mind Another big fat NO, will it bother Ann, yet another big fat NO.


CBB is a television reality show, the theme is the Year of the Woman, not Gay Rights, LGBT agendas and one Drag act.

There were many housemates who haven't whined on and on for something which they have already received. Gays have got it, what's the problem?

No, Gays are seriously in jeopardy of looking like they cannot accept what they already have and will instigate a witch hunt after an elderly woman who broke no laws, served her constituents as a MP for years and voted for her religious beliefs.

I salute those posters who have said they are Gay but will not let Shane's rabble rousing on social media and LGBTs agendas stop them from leading a very full & happy life and would abhor what has been happening in their name.

One last point, those who attack Ann at every turn might be very surprised that life does not begin and end in what's in your pants. It is only a part of life and one which seems to consume those who presumably are sexually active anyway, what more do you want? Demand demand demand, is all I have read on here, you do as we say or you are this or that. No we are not, you can't make us it by name calling or labeling. Some of the childish posts on here are pitiful, just pitiful yet they think we will say, Yes of course you are right. What might happen is that Gays could face a backlash because of their demands.

They are not the biggest group in the population yet by anymeans, yet make the loudest noises. There is a thing called a silent majority which is happy to accommodate all people, races, orientations and opinions, but to push them too far by the sort of behaviour that has gone on recently could very well be to the detriment of everything achieved by those who worked so hard to achieve them.

Amazing ... post of the day award to you my lovely :flowers:

[Paula D]

It was assault.

The **** he told me as an 18 year old I was so shocked.

He went on to be Mr gay UK though so good for him.....the **** he described to me is like something you see on american horror story.

How can we support any of these issues? This isn't directed at you Vicky just at everyone I know if one of your children turned out gay you as a good person would not endorse them being made to have 1950s style electric shock treatment.

Ive loved how housemates have been able to talk freely this year it's made it a social experiment again but Ann to me is the female version of hitler.So now Ann has killed people has she?

What an atrocious statement.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Niamh.]

We're not talking about the legal definition Niamh.

I disagree with you, no-one should be encouraging one person to attack another.I didn't say people should do that though [emoji23]

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

So now Ann has killed people has she?

What an atrocious statement.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

probably

she looks the type

[pontyboi]

So now Ann has killed people has she?

What an atrocious statement.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Ffs I was comparing her to someone who had a grudge against a certain group of people which Ann has allways had.

I never said Ann killed people infact Hitler got his followers to do it.

I think we can both agree that Ann's views on curing gays is backwards! No?!

[joeysteele]

So now Ann has killed people has she?

What an atrocious statement.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Any valid comment as to the horrific content of the account of the poster's friend and what happened to him.

Or is it easier to just deflect from the things Ann actually has appeared to support such as this vicious so called therapy.

[Marsh.]

Deflection, ignorance, selective memory.

[Jamie89]

This thread reminded me of the scene in Bruno where he talks to a conversion therapist (or might have been ex-gay) but I couldn't find the clip and found this instead :laugh: it's pretty funny so I thought I'd post it

LazrAzBP_0I

[joeysteele]

Why on earth does he need the support of others to challenge her though? That makes it sound even worse tbh. I cannot bring up something thats bothering me unless I have managed to convince everyone around me to back me up when I say it? Nah.


Its not misconstrued at all. It was clear what he was doing and he did want Wayne to go and start.


I would have respected him for doing this. Very near the start of the show he had this out with Ann about her voting record, and it seemed a mature convo where they were polar opposites but both respected each others right to an opinion.

I am not bothered at all about him challenging her on her views. I like conversations about difficult topics. I just dislike the childish sneaking around behind someones back. Seems the rest of the housemates (bar Malika) agree too.

I dont see it your way sorry.
I only see him as wrong for not going to Ann directly.

Other than that as someone else said, the previous night Wayne had mouthed off against Ann.

Wayne inferred he felt Shane would have liked him to approach Ann on the rights issue but Wayne clearly said to Amanda that Shane had not asked him to.
Shane misguidedly possibly thought Wayne may have sided with him.

Also,I have myself,come across a fair number of people who need possibly,or seek support for their position before raIsing possibly contentious issues with others.

We disagree on his reasoning.
I just neither see him being really vindictive or bad.

Misguided as to his hopes and wrong to not just go to Ann directly.
That to me is all I concluded,I saw little to really get at him for on it.

[Cherie]

Oh please, if it was a programme about Gay rights, LGBT or other serious issues you would be right.

But it is not, it is an entertainment show. So many just want to feel morally superior whilst not knowing the basics of why, how, what Ann's reasons were, just that they want to score antiquated points.

So what if you are right, slap on the back, well done, you have surely shown it to Ann, good for you, hurray, and millions more of plaudits for showing little old Ann just how magnanimous you are when bringing up her past, voting records, mariage status, sexual habits and the kitchen sink.

OK noted, understood, underlined, gold star, woohoo, does it change anything which hasn't already been changed? A big fat NO. Will Ann change her mind Another big fat NO, will it bother Ann, yet another big fat NO.


CBB is a television reality show, the theme is the Year of the Woman, not Gay Rights, LGBT agendas and one Drag act.

There were many housemates who haven't whined on and on for something which they have already received. Gays have got it, what's the problem?

No, Gays are seriously in jeopardy of looking like they cannot accept what they already have and will instigate a witch hunt after an elderly woman who broke no laws, served her constituents as a MP for years and voted for her religious beliefs.

I salute those posters who have said they are Gay but will not let Shane's rabble rousing on social media and LGBTs agendas stop them from leading a very full & happy life and would abhor what has been happening in their name.

One last point, those who attack Ann at every turn might be very surprised that life does not begin and end in what's in your pants. It is only a part of life and one which seems to consume those who presumably are sexually active anyway, what more do you want? Demand demand demand, is all I have read on here, you do as we say or you are this or that. No we are not, you can't make us it by name calling or labeling. Some of the childish posts on here are pitiful, just pitiful yet they think we will say, Yes of course you are right. What might happen is that Gays could face a backlash because of their demands.

They are not the biggest group in the population yet by anymeans, yet make the loudest noises. There is a thing called a silent majority which is happy to accommodate all people, races, orientations and opinions, but to push them too far by the sort of behaviour that has gone on recently could very well be to the detriment of everything achieved by those who worked so hard to achieve them over the years.


Post of the decade

[Marsh.]

If you're homophobic, you're homophobic. No matter the reasons.

You can writer 12 essays on her reasons. It doesn't change the fact.

[montblanc]

That racist spits on ALL non-white people so he's not discriminating ALRIGHT!!!

:joker:

[Crimson Dynamo]

If you're homophobic, you're homophobic. No matter the reasons.

You can writer 12 essays on her reasons. It doesn't change the fact.

Maybe you need conversion therapy to stop your homophobia?

[Marsh.]

Maybe you need conversion therapy to stop your homophobia?

Me and Ann are content thank you.

[HBIC]

Are you familiar with the concept of democracy? People with opposing opinions vote and the majority wins the vote. What they were voting for then becomes law and EVERYONE abides by it. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it. Brexit was a very clear example.

Democracy encompasses all opinion ... Ann was part of that process, and a very valuable part too.
Um, no...a democracy is not exclusively majority rule like you describe

What you are describing is known as the "tyranny of the majority." Not a proper democracy.

Potentially, through tyranny of the majority, a disliked or unfavored ethnic, religious, political, social, or racial group may be deliberately targeted for oppression by the majority element acting through the democratic process

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

This is why everyone should take a political science class. So many people here don't even know what an actual democracy entails.

[Twosugars]

Oh please, if it was a programme about Gay rights, LGBT or other serious issues you would be right.


CBB is a television reality show, the theme is the Year of the Woman, not Gay Rights, LGBT agendas and one Drag act.


1/ this year's CBB is different, it has a theme and it is a serious theme
2/ the reason why there is not much discussion about women rights is because Ms Widdecombe shuts down any such discussions and others let her (her dominant and rigid personality rules the roost in the house)
3/ all women who went into the house with Ann were spouting in their VTs about feminism, equality etc. Sadly those who would have challenged her like Rachel or Maggie were eliminated, others, like the young ones decided not to upset Ann.
4/only Shane J dared to try and question Ann with predictable results. And since his life's work is lgbtq rights, that's the topic he raised. (I can just imagine the rage of some if he dared to speak for women)
5/his support outside is loud and proud because we, lgbtq, support our people trying to fight our corner.
There, the mystery solved.

If a drag queen wins the year of the woman then it will be not just thanks to Shane J, but also thanks to Ann.

[poppsywoppsy]

Me and Ann are content thank you.

Happy bedfellows, no less

[Bones]

in MY opinion she’s scum


Not really :) But Malika is. Glad she is out :)

[Bones]

probably

she looks the type

Nah, but Malika looks just like that type.

[Ant.]

Not really :) But Malika is. Glad she is out :)

I like how a lot of the defence I have seen for Ann is "she is allowed her own opinion!!" Yet when people (e.g. scott) has an opinion on her that is negative, they're denied that opinion... hm

[Bones]

I like how a lot of the defence I have seen for Ann is "she is allowed her own opinion!!" Yet when people (e.g. scott) has an opinion on her that is negative, they're denied that opinion... hm

Any examples?

[Ant.]

Any examples?

Scott just said "in my opinion she's scum" and in turn you said "not really"

Hm

[susie q]

I know I thought that ,but really it's like just because they hate her they flow along with anything said,such close mindedness I have never seen before.

Well Im glad I read the article, because it really isnt as black & white as some would have us believe. I am also curious to know why no one has passed an opinion on the part of the article where she condemns the men who wanted to execute openly gay muslim men, who apparrentely didnt expect to be punished for printing articles endorsing that view. I liked her view on that, and would agree with punishment being given to anyone endorsing violence against gay people irrespective of their religion. I guess there is danger that some of us might be' converted' to the view that Ann isnt totally evil after all. Closed minds really are quite a dangerous thing.

[poppsywoppsy]

1/ this year's CBB is different, it has a theme and it is a serious theme
2/ the reason why there is not much discussion about women rights is because Ms Widdecombe shuts down any such discussions and others let her (her dominant and rigid personality rules the roost in the house)
3/ all women who went into the house with Ann were spouting in their VTs about feminism, equality etc. Sadly those who would have challenged her like Rachel or Maggie were eliminated, others, like the young ones decided not to upset Ann.
4/only Shane J dared to try and question Ann with predictable results. And since his life's work is lgbtq rights, that's the topic he raised. (I can just imagine the rage of some if he dared to speak for women)
5/his support outside is loud and proud because we, lgbtq, support our people trying to fight our corner.
There, the mystery solved.

If a drag queen wins the year of the woman then it will be not just thanks to Shane J, but also thanks to Ann.

I disagree, Ann is happy to discuss anything, Shane has said so. Ann would never shut down any discussion of women's rights. She does state that men and women are not the same in degrees of strength but they are in other ways which she fully endorses.

Why would anyone challenge Ann on a subject she agreed with them. Their way might not be her way but the underlying aims were exactly the same.

Shane has rabble roused and tried to cause Ann the most distress which he has failed totally at because all his housemates turned on him and nominated him.

Why does the LGBT brigade want to win by default instead of winning by honest and decent means. Why did Shane go in with info to harm Ann rather than being a housemate and winning on merit. In fact his actions are giving Ann a backing she might not have had if he had chosen to do such. Why you need to view this in such a competitive manner rattling the Gay banner when every other housemate is there only to be themselves. It is hardly a level playing field.

If a drag queen wins, which he should with the backing he has and the tactics deployed, then it is sad for all the women who work every day, bring up a family and enjoy actually being a woman 24/7, not when she wants to win a reality show.

[Kazanne]

Well Im glad I read the article, because it really isnt as black & white as some would have us believe. I am also curious to know why no one has passed an opinion on the part of the article where she condemns the men who wanted to execute openly gay muslim men, who apparrentely didnt expect to be punished for printing articles endorsing that view. I liked her view on that, and would agree with punishment being given to anyone endorsing violence against gay people irrespective of their religion. I guess there is danger that some of us might be' converted' to the view that Ann isnt totally evil after all. Closed minds really are quite a dangerous thing.

:clap1::clap1:Oh how the truth will be overlooked:wavey:

[Marsh.]

:wavey::thumbs:Yep,she also voted against fox hunting,another one that will be over looked

What does her views on fox hunting have to do with anything?

"Ann Widdecombe votes against gay rights at every opportunity BUT her favourite flavour of crisps are cheese and onion so she can't be all bad".

[GoldHeart]

What does her views on fox hunting have to do with anything?

"Ann Widdecombe votes against gay rights at every opportunity BUT her favourite flavour of crisps are cheese and onion so she can't be all bad".

It wasn't just the fox hunting ban , there's other stuff as well that gets ignored .

[Marsh.]

It wasn't just the fox hunting ban , there's other stuff as well that gets ignored .

Again.... what does that have to do with the price of fish?

Seriously, what does her views on fox hunting have to do with the topic of discussion?

[Greg!]

then equally those that do support it are entitled to say that those that disagree with it are SCUM .... do you not see where that ends up?

So you're saying you agree with conversion therapy? :think: A mess if true.

Post of the decade

If a post basically saying "we'll turn on the gays if they keep calling out homophobia lol" is considered a great post I'd like to see the bad ones :skull:

[GoldHeart]

Again.... what does that have to do with the price of fish?

Seriously, what does her views on fox hunting have to do with the topic of discussion?

No Marsh I said it's not just about the fox hunting ban :facepalm: , did you read the post about Muslims above ?.

[Marsh.]

No Marsh I said it's not just about the fox hunting ban :facepalm: , did you read the post about Muslims above ?.

I read it. You haven't answered my question.

"Ann doesn't want gay people dead so that makes maintaining inequality a good thing"? Huh?

[GoldHeart]

I read it. You haven't answered my question.

"Ann doesn't want gay people dead so that makes maintaining inequality a good thing"? Huh?

So you have read it , I guess no matter what we'll always disagree and go round in circles . Ann clearly gets on with Shane J when he's not being a sour bitch and she was best friends with Amanda ,why doesn't that stand for anything ?? :facepalm:.

[poppsywoppsy]

So you're saying you agree with conversion therapy? :think: A mess if true.



If a post basically saying "we'll turn on the gays if they keep calling out homophobia lol" is considered a great post I'd like to see the bad ones :skull:

Twist and Shout......

[Marsh.]

So you have read it , I guess no matter what we'll always disagree and go round in circles . Ann clearly gets on with Shane J when he's not being a sour bitch and she was best friends with Amanda ,why doesn't that stand for anything ?? :facepalm:.

What do you want it to stand for?

You've avoided my question again, so we'll just move on.

[Twosugars]

I disagree, Ann is happy to discuss anything, Shane has said so. Ann would never shut down any discussion of women's rights. She does state that men and women are not the same in degrees of strength but they are in other ways which she fully endorses.

Why would anyone challenge Ann on a subject she agreed with them. Their way might not be her way but the underlying aims were exactly the same.

Do you remember what Ann said about women equality? she thinks gender is unimportant and called it not equality but a tilted table. She is so close-minded she thinks just because she got ahead with men in parliament therefore all women should get on and stop moaning.
I can't believe you don't remember this and other things? Her view that women complaing about sex abuse in Hollywood knew what was involved? I can't be bothered to go through the whole list of things. :shrug:


Shane has rabble roused and tried to cause Ann the most distress which he has failed totally at because all his housemates turned on him and nominated him.
Rabble-roused? More like stayed true to his convictions instead of appeasing granny Ann

Why does the LGBT brigade want to win by default instead of winning by honest and decent means. Why did Shane go in with info to harm Ann rather than being a housemate and winning on merit. In fact his actions are giving Ann a backing she might not have had if he had chosen to do such. Why you need to view this in such a competitive manner rattling the Gay banner when every other housemate is there only to be themselves. It is hardly a level playing field.
You don't need any "info" to harm Ann, she provides it herself as she hasn't changed her views since being in parliament and she is not shy to let you know them.
And any sensible person would try to find out who are the people they will ber living with for weeks on TV.
Shane is a campaigner, that's his whole life. That's who he is and he is being himself. You don't blame Wayne for prancing about all the time because he is a dancer? Or Amanda for hamming it up? Some people can't leave things that are their passion at the door.
Shane is not competitive, actually he is the opposite. The patience and moderation he has shown in there is amazing. Not many people would show such maturity. Many exiting housemates said so.
He is not rattling any banners, he is able to talk in respectful way to all of them. Geez, even Ann called him kind tonight.

If a drag queen wins, which he should with the backing he has and the tactics deployed, then it is sad for all the women who work every day, bring up a family and enjoy actually being a woman 24/7, not when she wants to win a reality show.
Shane was gracious to say tonight that he tought a woman should win, didn't he.
If CBB wanted to guarantee a female winner they should have been women only. When it started that's what I thought.
Since it is a popularity contest, even with one man in the mix there is always a chance that that man could win. That's not Shane's fault.

[Twosugars]

If a post basically saying "we'll turn on the gays if they keep calling out homophobia lol" is considered a great post I'd like to see the bad ones :skull:
This.
But it is good to know, true colours are coming out.

[rusticgal]

Um, no...a democracy is not exclusively majority rule like you describe

What you are describing is known as the "tyranny of the majority." Not a proper democracy.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

This is why everyone should take a political science class. So many people here don't even know what an actual democracy entails.


Democracy gives everyone the right to give opinion...if it comes to the vote the majority wins. You really can't get fairer than that.

[poppsywoppsy]

This.
But it is good to know, true colours are coming out.

Why look for slights when they do not exist. You just wrote a great post but took one line from mine which was then twisted out of context.

I cannot understand why this happens, what do others get by making a meaning out of a post which was not there in the first place. Just to suit their agenda.

I read your post, I didn't agree but will not do it a discourtesy of twisting it or reading something into it which isn't there. That is my true colours, now you know.

[HBIC]

Democracy gives everyone the right to give opinion...if it comes to the vote the majority wins. You really can't get fairer than that.
Democracy is so much more than just “most votes = winner”

Did you read the wiki article I linked in my post?

[sungrass]

people dont understand how much they owe to people like Shane J who have the nads to fight for freedom and be themselves. Bullish people stand up for a 70 year old virgin who would ban rock music, make up, the Spice girls and hugs etc if 'she' had her way. I went to Catholic school -
we take for granted what people like Shane J fight/fought for.

[Twosugars]

Why look for slights when they do not exist. You just wrote a great post but took one line from mine which was then twisted out of context.

I cannot understand why this happens, what do others get by making a meaning out of a post which was not there in the first place. Just to suit their agenda.

I read your post, I didn't agree but will not do it a discourtesy of twisting it or reading something into it which isn't there. That is my true colours, now you know.

Why, thank you poppsy for a compliment about my great post.

I reacted to the other bit of your post this way because it sounded to me that lgbt should shut up or else. Read it again and see how it may come across. I found it threatening. If it was unintended as you seem to be saying above then my apologies.

[poppsywoppsy]

Why, thank you poppsy for a compliment about my great post.

I reacted to the other bit of your post this way because it sounded to me that lgbt should shut up or else. Read it again and see how it may come across. I found it threatening. If it was unintended as you seem to be saying above then my apologies.

Thank you:wavey:

[Crimson Dynamo]

people dont understand how much they owe to people like Shane J who have the nads to fight for freedom and be themselves. Bullish people stand up for a 70 year old virgin who would ban rock music, make up, the Spice girls and hugs etc if 'she' had her way. I went to Catholic school -
we take for granted what people like Shane J fight/fought for.

shane j has done precisely nothing


he is australian and not involved in the political process


what on earth are you on about?

[chuff me dizzy]

people dont understand how much they owe to people like Shane J who have the nads to fight for freedom and be themselves. Bullish people stand up for a 70 year old virgin who would ban rock music, make up, the Spice girls and hugs etc if 'she' had her way. I went to Catholic school -
we take for granted what people like Shane J fight/fought for.

You give him too much credit my dear, he's a drag act and not a very good one at that,hardly Henry Kissinger

[poppsywoppsy]

You give him too much credit my dear, he's a drag act and not a very good one at that,hardly Henry Kissinger

Hmmmm, Henry Kissinger, what's in a name?:laugh: most apt.

[Marsh.]

he's a drag act and not a very good one at that,hardly Henry Kissinger

Henry Kissinger's drag act was sublime, I agree with you there.

[Trip]

Henry Kissinger's drag act was sublime, I agree with you there.

:joker: