Originally Posted by Robertocarlo (Post 9826648)

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826681)

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9826689)

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

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9826689)

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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826545)

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

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 9826059)

Disagree all you like

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 9826059)

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

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 9826059)

I accept your alternative opinion.

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 9826059)

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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826002)

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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826002)

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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826002)

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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826002)

Think on.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826545)

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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826545)

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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826545)

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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826545)

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

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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826600)

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

Originally Posted by Lilac hills (Post 9826703)

Ann makes up for it by being a fantastic housemate tho tbhimo

Queen of being fantastic outside of her views :clap1:

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 9826698)

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









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

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









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

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

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



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



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

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

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



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

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



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

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



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

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 9826698)

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









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

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









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

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

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



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



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

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

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



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

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



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

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



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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826706)

Give it a rest old chap:shrug::shrug

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9826603)

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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826600)

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

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

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

Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 9826664)

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Paula D (Post 9826715)

Bigots calling other people bigots. It's hilarious.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 9826273)

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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826706)

Give it a rest old chap:shrug::shrug

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9826729)

His looks will fade sooner than he thinks and with a lack of any substance he will get a rude awakening to real life. Good looks won’t carry him through life for long. I feel for him - not!

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy (Post 9826726)

So why are they still bleating on fgs ?

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 9826728)

I'm just ignoring it all now it's got bloody silly ,round and round in circles,people trying to tell people how they should feel and what they should say,i have noticed the ones who are calling Ann are the ones throwing the insults round more, so go figure that one,imo Ann is not homophobic,I don't want to watch two grown adults talking dirty and rolling round the floor either,so people can be as close minded as they like ,NO WAY is she homophobic,but she will be asked about it when she leaves so why not wait and find out before condemning the woman. Is everyone supposed to like the same thing:shrug:

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9821994)

People are allowed to think that someone is homophobic.

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy (Post 9826739)

Same here

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 9826728)

I'm just ignoring it all now it's got bloody silly ,round and round in circles,people trying to tell people how they should feel and what they should say,i have noticed the ones who are calling Ann are the ones throwing the insults round more, so go figure that one,imo Ann is not homophobic,I don't want to watch two grown adults talking dirty and rolling round the floor either,so people can be as close minded as they like ,NO WAY is she homophobic,but she will be asked about it when she leaves so why not wait and find out before condemning the woman. Is everyone supposed to like the same thing:shrug: