:worship:

She does say what she thinks,right or wrong,that's admirable.
She does stand by what she says and will defend it,that's equally admirable.
Her actions back up usually her words,at least you know where you are with her,that's admirable.
She has voted against near all lgbt rights legislation and the comment last night was unnecessary.

She should have been pulled up on it and challenged.
Andrew and Shane J would have done better to have forced a challenge to what she said.
I for sure would have.

It's all very well supporting her and I still do as a housemate but she overstepped things last night.
I've been amazed at those not condemning the comment, while still liking the person making it.
Or has she said something that strikes a chord here with anyone,hence the acceptance and no condemnation of the wording chosen to be used by her.
That's worrying and ought to be too.

She makes lots of challenges to others in the house,they need to challenge back.

She's formidable,she'll stand her ground, wrong or right no matter the issue.

She has odd ideas as to women too as well as lgbt community.
She did after all storm off from the church of England not agreeing with women being Priests to become Roman Catholic.
I'd love to get to really talk with her on her views and beliefs.
Few of them I'd agree with but she is compulsive viewing.

Still totally wrong in her choice of wording last night however and such terminology does not in my view,warrant acceptance of her doing so.

She is a lady who says what she thinks and means,the words she uses,she means them as she says them given the chance.
Wrong or right.

If she's right and people agree with her,fine, they won't condemn the response.
I still support her as a housemate but will never agree her record or stance for lgbt rights.
So I have and will continue to condemn what she said last night, while still supporting the person as a housemate.

Her comments are being rejected...and praised..aint that better than one or the other?

Her thoughts are also being debated which is a good thing, it can only lead to more understanding and tolerance when people who think those kinds of comments are not acceptable to people (whether she meant it or not is irrelevant as its caused a talking point)

She was moaning about something not being fair in week 1.5..cant remember what..you wont be a help seeing as you dont watch it.....maybe that could be classed as playing the victim?

Ive seen in the beginning when Ann will stomp her feet in protest when she disagrees with BB rules , but that's hardly playing victim :hehe::conf:.

She didn't like the birth stimulator the lads went through , and she didn't like keeping the tea and cakes from the lads either as she wanted to share but the treat was only for the women .

I can't see anywhere where she's played victim.

She did that

I agree...:joker:

She was in the diary room giving it plenty..i think you might have missed the one i saw...i will look back on my recorded episodes and fill you in sometime tomorrow.

ann is not a victim and never has been through her entire career. Really it would be nice to have an adult discussion

Hear hear

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

I pretty much agree with this (I was just about to quote a different one of your posts in the other thread on this but it's closed but I agree with pretty much all you've already said on this) so I haven't really got anything to add. There's plenty of housemates though who've said and done things I've strongly disagreed with but I've still thought they were great housemates, Pete Burns and Nikki Grahame spring to mind, so I don't have much problem supporting Ann as a housemate whilst disagreeing with her views. I do find it surprising though that so many people don't seem to see why her comments might be offensive to gay people, it really doesn't seem to me to be the greatest stretch of the imagination to think that she might actually hold some anti-gay views considering her past and some of the things she's said.

Why does everyone expect everyone to accept being gay? She doesn't agree with it but isn't hurtful on her opinions and it's the reason why the LGBT community is never given a fair crack at the whip when you accuses as being homophobic for just looking at a person funny

Thank you Jamie.

That is what I was trying to convey.
You have likely put it better and more succinctly than I did.
Thank.you again.

She murdered fashion years ago.

No. Nothing hurtful about not agreeing other human beings are worthy of equality with other humans just because of who they prefer to share their bed with. In her career, she has been in a position to help give them equality and chose to oppose them at every turn.

Not "agreeing" with it is by definition what homophobia is. She dislikes it and is prejudiced against those people.

She's a fashion icon.

Have you seen that nightie? She's bringing back the Wee Willie Winkie look!

I am a gay man. I'm 34. I would like to think I'm somewhat intelligent. I am far to the left politically and Anne Widdecombe and I have some very different views about the world.

But, I don't thing we need to be carrying out a witch hunt over an off the cuff comment she made. She didn't say I think gay people are disgusting. She didn't personally attack anyone. She didn't use any unwarranted language. She just said "don't be disgusting". With a sneer granted, but even if she did mean it as a horrible slight to all gay people.. that's fine! She is allowed that opinion! What she is not allowed to do is use that opinion to discriminate someone. To bully or hurt. Until she does that everybody needs to chill the ******* out.

Both you and joey's post 100%. It's not a stretch at all to see how actions/words can be seen differently in another context. It's basic consideration I think to at least give some thought on how other certain people might feel about the interpretation given the context... even if you don't agree with that specific interpretation, there is room for other interpretations.

Why we give one side full benefit of the doubt to one side and another not, isn't showing that consideration... or empathy really.

I do think though there will always be people who will look for offense anywhere and everywhere and if they can't find it, they will find a way to create it. But you can usually tell who those folk once you converse with them for a bit... but even then, is their perspective 100% invalid in a discussion?

NOW YOUR TALKING I agree totally Cherie

What a great unbiased post:clap1::clap1:

Someone please explain to the OP what playing the victim entails.

She openly loves Shane though and has said what people to behind closed doors is up to them.

She has explained her reasonable reasons for the votes while in parliament

Exactly :clap1:
Very Refreshing comment .

:clap1: a mature and intelligent post