Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9826592)

I have accepted it. We're having a discussion on a discussion forum. You do comprehend what that is do you Not?

Thought police? What are you blathering about now? No one sought to control her thoughts.

When those thoughts become publicly broadcast opinions and become actions in her role in parliament then it becomes a subject for us all to comment on.

She is bigoted against LGBT people and doesn't believe they deserve equality. Fact.

She's entitled to that opinion. But you can't blindingly retort that it isn't homophobic. It is.

Originally Posted by Lilac hills (Post 9826520)

They’re not in a relationship, they had a relationship. It doesn’t mean dating

Also like sure you can prove in the most bare bones sense Ann is a ‘homophobe’ which I don’t necessarily agree with but whatever butters ur crumpet. But what does this prove about her and her character, her demeanour and such?

Why is this something Ann has ‘gotten away with’ like she’s avoided incarceration or smth

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 Lilac hills (Post 9826612)

https://media1.tenor.com/images/4ba3...itemid=5053712

Trying to prove Ann is a homophobe is such a trivial pursuit. She lost the vote she didn’t agree on so her allegedly homophobic views didn’t count for sh!t so liek who cares

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826611)

According to you, she is wrong, did wrong and needs to stop being as she is.

She is as entitled to her views, as this is a democracy, not a dictatorship where everyone must bow down to what you think.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826611)

She is as entitled to her views, as this is a democracy, not a dictatorship where everyone must bow down to what you think.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826611)

According to you, she is wrong, did wrong and needs to stop being as she is.

She is as entitled to her views, as this is a democracy, not a dictatorship where everyone must bow down to what you think.

Originally Posted by Lilac hills (Post 9826612)

https://media1.tenor.com/images/4ba3...itemid=5053712

Trying to prove Ann is a homophobe is such a trivial pursuit. She lost the vote she didn’t agree on so her allegedly homophobic views didn’t count for sh!t so liek who cares

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9826614)

Its been a refreshing change to not have endless accusations of racism this series actually.

I think its quite clear Ann has some homophobic views. I don't really think age is an excuse but I can see why others think it is. I did used to excuse my grandads homophobia as being gay was actually illegal for most of his life and I don't think its possible to just change your views as soon as the law changes. It was odd as my grandad was clearly homophobic but he got on brilliantly with my gay friends. He was so stereotypical in his thinking too..like, before he met any of them he thought all gay people were really camp and such.

I didn't mean to make this about my grandad. But yeah, I do think Ann has some homophobic views, but I don't know is she is actually homophobic, if that makes sense? It probably doesn't the way I am explaining it but I know what I mean :laugh:

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9826614)

Its been a refreshing change to not have endless accusations of racism this series actually.

I think its quite clear Ann has some homophobic views. I don't really think age is an excuse but I can see why others think it is. I did used to excuse my grandads homophobia as being gay was actually illegal for most of his life and I don't think its possible to just change your views as soon as the law changes. It was odd as my grandad was clearly homophobic but he got on brilliantly with my gay friends. He was so stereotypical in his thinking too..like, before he met any of them he thought all gay people were really camp and such.

I didn't mean to make this about my grandad. But yeah, I do think Ann has some homophobic views, but I don't know is she is actually homophobic, if that makes sense? It probably doesn't the way I am explaining it but I know what I mean :laugh:

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 bitontheslide (Post 9826615)

ann is not a homophobe. She has not persecuted any homosexual people in the house, excluded them, isolated them or tried to treat them differently from anyone else in the house. There is zero evidence of her persecuting anyone.

When people attribute a difference of opinion to some sort of hate or persecution they are diluting the cases where it genuinely exists and reducing the chances of real homophobia being treated seriously

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 poppsywoppsy (Post 9826644)

Good post.

All she has really said is that she doesn't agree with it and the sanctity of marriage within the church is between a man and a woman in her opinion.

She has not gone into the vile rants of many of the opposite views who if they said it towards Gay people would be far worse than anything she has ever said.

They do the Gay community no help by being so vociferous in their language and insults towards a lady who has not said anything like the nastiness thrown her way.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 9826615)

ann is not a homophobe. She has not persecuted any homosexual people in the house, excluded them, isolated them or tried to treat them differently from anyone else in the house. There is zero evidence of her persecuting anyone.

When people attribute a difference of opinion to some sort of hate or persecution they are diluting the cases where it genuinely exists and reducing the chances of real homophobia being treated seriously

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826574)

Can it not be that people have the right to be Gay and lead their lives as they see fit

Others have the right to their own view and to do the same

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9826657)

She doesn't need to go into vile rants.

She doesn't believe they are deserving of equal rights. That is discrimination.

Funny how calling out her homophobia is labelled as "vociferous insults" but the homophobia itself people need to "get over it". Ok.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy (Post 9826672)

No, she leaves that to Andrew

She can be and think as she wants, it is her right

You cannot dictate what and how she thinks

Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 9826569)

That last statement is spot on.

Something has always been a certain way so. Should never be changed.

That is Ann's way as to lgbt rights all through.
She also hides behind religion,again until it doesn't suit her her more rigid agenda.
The Church of England which she was in, its synod democratically voted to ordain Women as Priests.

Ann does not agree Women can be or should be Priests so discounts that vote and heads off into the Roman Catholic religion where her rigid line is still in place,no women Priests.
She will not budge or compromise on equality rights.

Voting against equality rights,is leaving people without equal status and rights.
What is odd to me with religion and many say religious belief is superstition and nonsense.

Christianity,is following the teaching of Jesus. Just take the 4 gospels,(supposedly meaning truth),which account for his words and teaching.

Nowhere does any condemnation of homosexuality appear from all attributed to him.
So how Christianity can hold prejudices towards lgbt people is beyond me.
Yet Ann does.
Religion appears to suit when used to judge others and deny their needs,hopes and feelings.

This is why I think organised religion a mess and indeed harmful more than upbuilding.
This is another post that will likely be ridiculed but other times,religion as a base for prejudice and denial of rights gets derided,when it suits.

Again however,tradition as you state,is another selective barrier to allowing inequality and unequal rights to remain so.

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 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 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.