Just as I thought. My ignore list grows.

He called a meeting to justify them.

That isn't what I asked.

Do you think that he, or indeed anyone with such views, should have to justify them?

Winston was wrong IMO to try and justify them. I said from the beginning that he should have just said "its my opinion" and ignored them. He hasn't because he has lived with 15 people who were all bullying him.

So I will rephrase my question:

Do you think anyone with such views should have to justify them?


I'll nail my colours to the mast. I don't think they should.

By the way, if you recall, it was the HMs, and specifically Gemma, that demanded that Winston explain his views when the task happened.

They seemed to think he somehow had a duty to explain them.

They should expect to be challenged on them.

They can try and justify them if they like, I don't care as the justifications are usually a load of waffle anyway and have no basis in fact.

Why should they expect to be challenged on them? Are you saying those views are less valid than opposing views?

Why shouldn't someone who agrees with gay adoption expect to be challenged on their views?:shrug:

And I return to the question I asked yesterday. Why wasn't Jim Davidson expected to be challenged on his view that Brian Dowling is a "shirtlifter" and a "puff"? Do we only challenge people we don't like?

Nope. Try reading again.

It's called debate. Ever changed your opinion on something when hearing different sides? Hardly shocking behaviour.


How the **** should I know? Ask the producers. I hated Jim.

Winston doesn't give a straight answer because he doesn't understand the question .

You are deliberately avoiding my point, as usual.

You claim that someone like Winston should be challenged on his views. Why? Why is his view less worthy than say John's? Should John be challenged on his?

Let us suppose that Winston had simply said, as I advised, "It's my opinion, I don't wish to discuss it, the end." Would that be OK?

Is Winstons opinion as valid as John's? If not, why not?

You are being deliberately obtuse.

Maybe someone else can be arsed with you because I can't.

If only you would take your own advice. :hehe:
Just joking, the forum is for discussion, carry on. :hehe:

Now he denies making homophobic remarks

Disgraced Celebrity Big Brother contestant Winston McKenzie has denied making homophobic comments and called the allegations ‘grotesque’.

The former UKIP candidate told reporters on Friday night: ‘I don’t know who said that. I deny any allegation – I think that’s a grotesque statement to make.’

He added: ‘I genuinely do not remember saying that unless someone has some tape and then they need to come forward. But I don’t remember saying something like that.’
http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/09/celebr...ments-5611836/
You would think he would have lookedat his VT before denying he said it !!!!

Oh oh, a bit of passive agression creeping in now.

A wise retreat.

Your view that Winston should be challenged tells us everything.

I'd challenge any view I disagree with. It's only you that thinks he's a special case. So it tells you **** all really :shrug:

If the person doesn't want to engage in debate, so what?

Views are challenged all the time on any subject.

You like conversations that go 'I think blah blah is whatever. It's my opinion and that's that. I don't have to justify it'

The conversation would be very short and probs end with 'umm ok, moving on'...

Great so you also think John should be challenged on his view that gay adoption is right.

We got there in the end didn't we.:spin:

http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/09/celebr...ments-5611836/

WTF? What is wrong with this man? He denies saying what he did on his VT..

He might have the onset of Dementia for all we know,don't be nasty:hehe:

Where am I and who are you? :laugh:

...the child's happiness and the best family for them is always considered as the first priority, though...and in that priority gay couples are able to adopt because they are felt to be preferential parents, to be able to offer what that child needs..there is no 'robbing' by adoption agencies of anything a mother could provide because in some cases it's the biological mother herself who has 'robbed'...robbing her child(ren) of love, safety, trust and of a committed, responsible and stable home and maternal parent...and instead, damaged them in some cases with abuse...children..(I don't mean babies..).. that are adopted are often and mostly very 'damaged' children and very mistrusting, for obvious reasons.... they can and often do, have extreme behaviour issues...and where a mother herself has been the issue/the reason for their being adopted and the reason for their 'damage'...they can also have no trust with females in their lives/who then become the 'targets' for their emotions, through their fear and mistrust of them and it certainly wouldn't be in their best interest to place them with one... but for instance..two males could be exactly what's needed to provide that happiness...there is not 'one size fits all' child to be adopted as the reasons for them being adopted/their lives are entirely different and equally there is not a one size fits all parenting for that child(ren)...it's not selfish at all to give a child happiness and a family who can best provide that, to give them everything, they've already been 'robbed' of before adoption, I would say it's the exact opposite of selfishness...it would be robbing a second time, to deny them that if it was available to them...


..but equally, if a male/female parenting is what that child(ren) need, that's indeed exactly what they get...always what will provide them with what they've been 'robbed' of in their lives...

In whos opinion, yours? It is easy to argue that growing up with two fathers leave the child in a much healthier position (they certainly would not grow up as ignorant as Winston and wouldn't possess yours and his shared views, so thats one, nil to same sex couples right there) but it is obviously something that you've grown into and not something you are willing to grow out of.

I do believe that you would personally be upset with a same sex couple as parents but you should understand that most people are likely to not give a **** because that is the way Britain is evolving, your only argument is I'm less evolved than most of Britain so listen to me and Winston because **** you. and that's not a good argument.

Winston can't give a straight answer to a question because it's hard to defend bigotry.

So you are saying that only your opinion is right?

Do you actually know what an opinion is?:laugh:

Give it up. Racists and homophobes in this thread (there are a few) are going to support him and anyone with a brain is going to know what a twat he was. Either way morons like him will be forgotten faster if you dont talk about them.
Dont feed the idiots.

Why would racists support him?:shrug: They would be the ones witch hunting him.

Aye - having worked with kids that have been in care in a vocational college- truthfully they just want a family that loves them, they couldnt care less about them being gay, care is awful and lonely. However Winston was used by CBB and it was a witch hunt, in his culture thats how things are - its like my old nan, she is NOT politically correct! and its like nan - you musn't say that - but shes just an old woman. You should watch a bit of "it was alright in the 70's" - if you ever work with older people the things they will say will really shock you!

Winston is 62, not 82. His formative years were during the 60's which was quite an age of enlightenment. I don't personally know many people under 70 who has views like Winston. Over it, yes, I know quite a few who are scandalized by homosexuality but also others that aren't. Age isn't always an indicator by any means.

Has anyone made the "Unlike Winston to give a gay answer" pun yet?

On top of being a homophobe, he apparently also ran a pub which was closed down by police for being a 'hotbed' for arms and drugs. He's an all - round horrible piece of work.

Gemma Collins in the house on that fateful day asked him....did you say those words....answer, HELL YES.

What more do you want him to say or are you all just interested in him digging a hole and allowing his comments to be ridden like a wild horse.

Sometimes wanting blood after blood is really shallow. He said it, admitted it once which in his eyes was good enough, its documented and he avoids it now because admitting it yet again will only let his interviewer make him discuss it more which he obviously does not want to give then the satisfaction of.

Any link for that ?

Also, as a politician he should be expected to be in touch with how society currently is, regardless of his age. He should be held to different standards to other older people who aren't trying to be representative figures for the current population. If he's unable to move with the times then frankly, he's in the wrong job.