I agree.
She was a hard-line uncompromising individual during the 90s during the Con government.
She was even someone, My Father who was usually a strong Con voter at the time, disliked intensely for her views.

She still is.
Then claims to be a devout Christian.
Yet spouts out all her bigotry.
I can't see any excuses for her at all.
I think she'd just a horrible bigoted individual not worth the time of day frankly.

Yet as you mention, she gets snapped up by the media because she's going to just about always say something grossly offensive to groups of society or even individuals.
Which she'll lump together too, to emphasise her own bigotry.

Why the media dig these people out for their views to be so widely reported is unbelievable.
There's many others too.
However I don't think I've ever really agreed with a thing Widdecombe has said.
Then again, I've never been a supporter of those who spout out their own personal, hate, bigotry and judgemental prejudice like Widdecombe seems to thrive on doing.

I thought it was quite obvious, it gets people talking and looking at their newspaper :shrug: Controversy sells

:joker: :joker: :joker:

lmao, imagine wanting to ruin your newspaper because controversy sells

what do you think sells newspapers Nicky, flowers and rainbows? :laugh:

i know, but i have a huge dislike for controversial news

i am also sorry for calling Ann names, but she just isn't very smart to just say nasty stuff, she could better just ignore whatever she dislikes rather than looking it up and wanting to comment about it

...I think this whole ‘controversy’, which isn’t a controversy at all because its very much known what her views are on specific things, represents something really abhorrent...I don’t think it’s to ‘sell’ at all ...how many actual newspapers are sold now...people can get all of the news online for free...it doesn’t matter which media source covers a story because it’ll be repeated on social media/news sources as well...so I don’t think that ‘selling’ is such a thing for any media sources anymore...even with online subscriptions, another free source would probably be found....anyways, if she was asked for her opinion../...if that’s the case and she didn’t just offer it and then was quoted etc...it’s completely known what her opinion would be because she’s totally against same sex relationships/partnering in any form or any which way...so it could have only been asked with the intent for her to be abused/insulted etc ..?...there is no other reason and that’s intentionally opening her up to ‘hate’...and what would be the value in that for anyone at all...?...none whatsoever other than to try to stir up and incite ‘hate’ and that’s sadly what our ‘media’ often does...it creates the ‘victims’ purposefully and intentionally to add to the already victims of prejudice...

Then it's time something was done to ensure that those who have had to battle to get hard earned rights, don't have that questioned and controversy or deliberate offence raised to fuel more discord or prejudice against groups.

The only reason this awful woman is saying this as she did, is her own prejudice against anyone being of the LGBT communities.

It's because 2 people of the same sex are paired together in an entertainment show.

Are you trying to say she's right to fuel the still very sadly in my view, prejudice against LGBT rights and those individuals.
I personally don't think you are myself.

However, I see no reason to dredge up this woman and her worrying religious bigotry and personal prejudice against LGBT rights, which she's never supported.
To present that as news or relevant in a public service so called newspapers or any other outlet.

Just don't give these, as reece termed her, prehistoric bigots any platform.

I would claim to hold to Christian beliefs myself,I know one thing, were I to enter a church where Widdecombe was, I'd leave however.
Because she uses her severe more old testament views,as to her lgbt bigotry and prejudice.
Not thinking of the possible consequences of her words said publicly.

The publications and media that give her that platform are equally responsible for trying to sow more discord.

She singled out the 2 participants because of one thing only, they were competing and are a same sex pairing, which she says families don't want to see.
For me that's indefensible 100%.

So she'd have that pairing out of Strictly.
That's the undercurrent to her comments and personal prejudice.
That would be her aim.
Sending her hateful message to families that she believes they shouldn't support a same sex couple dancing on Strictly.
With sickeningly media allowing her to make her ugly bigoted view too.

I think that's wrong, wholly wrong.

You answered your own question there

yes Ian, i also am very excited to see that first performance of Nicola & Katya on saturday


also look forward of his wednesday warmup next week again weekly where he has to judge them in training :D

So, false equivalence by comparing calling her a bag to her trying to impede gay rights. Got it.

She always comes across as really miserable so I couldn’t care what she says to be perfectly honest.

quit the gaslighting it's very obvious what you are doing, post away I won't be responding to you again while you assign your own narrative to my posts, given other people can see exactly what I am saying you know exactly what you are doing.

Yes don’t allow others to put voices in your mouth. People try to do that and then runaway with their own narrative of what you said/implied. Your post was very clear :clap1:

let's just leave this for what it is pls

let those enjoy if they like this first same-sex dance couple, and others who don't, you can still support any of the other couples, i mean you got one of the more high profile comedians Bill Bailey to root for and tbh he isn't a bad dancer or at least what we saw in that group dance


i stick with the saying ''live and let live'' i mean Nicola Adams is a great sports signing, and tbh her being a lesbian, opting to dance with a woman, especially also saying she wants to play as the ''male'' in every performance, so no dresses, it is her right to do it like that, and respects to Katya for accepting this too to be her dance partner

you don't have to follow their journey while watching the show, i mean there are 11 other couples ;)

Courtney Act for the next season just to piss off Ann?

Going by this thread, she has succeeded in winding some people up which was clearly her intention. 1-0 Ann

Courtney cannot do strictly anymore, she already has done a DWTS show

Aye, homophobia is a well fun game

well her career in a nutshell, which is also why she fits perfectly into that troll brexit party with her fellow homophobe bigot moron Farage :joker: :joker:

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

I'm not gaslighting anyone. I'm just responding to your posts.

Thankfully its homophobic life is nearly over so why even give it the time of day?

The point is that you should call her names that are specific to her rather than names that apply broadly and are offensive to people who have nothing to do with her. e.g. flippantly saying "meh she's old, dried up and irrelevant" might seem justified when it's applied to her, but by saying that if someone is over a certain age they're "dried up and irrelevant", that's inevitably insulting to other older people. It's using a benign trait as an insult.

Other examples; "Pfft he's just a disgusting fat bastard what does he know I bet he stinks of old cheese in his flabby folds" - offensive to overweight people who have done nothing wrong.

"LOL look at that bitch talking about other people when she has giant moles all over her face" - offensive to anyone who has moles on their face.

etc.

not TS a fan of Widdecombe :omgno: :o

Like....the woman has made it clear she thinks all gay people should be wiped off the face of the face of the Earth, should be allowed nowhere near children and believes that gay people can be cured as though we’re some form of disease.

But yeah. Let’s not call her an old bag. That’s just totally unacceptable.