[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by Robertocarlo

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?!

Because they voted Ann back in until she retired might be a pointer.

Ann gave a valid nomination reason according to BB.

I heard them say they were aroused and they found it funny so why are you questioning their take on it.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

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.

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.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

Yes that must be it.

We are not discussing a prominent public figure who's appeared as a big part of celebrity big brother on a big brother forum.

That can't be it.

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

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.

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

Originally Posted by Jack_

Disagree all you like

Originally Posted by Jack_

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

Originally Posted by Jack_

I accept your alternative opinion.

Originally Posted by Jack_

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

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:

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

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

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

Think on.

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

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.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

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.

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.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

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.

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.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

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

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.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

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

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

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

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.

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.

[Vicky.]

I read on here that Ann also voted against gay people being able to have civil partnerships, is this true?

Just..I understand her reason for voting against gay marriage if its really about the meaning of the word marriage (ie between a man and a woman, blahblah) even though I disagree with it, but I cannot think of any reason why she would vote against civil partnerships.

The age of consent thing I think I might possibly agree with her on. Not that gay people should have a different age of consent (though she clarified this was not what she meant) but that she thinks the age of consent for everyone should be raised. So she voted against lowering it as she thinks it should be higher for everyone, totally understand the reasoning for that one.

But civil partnerships, no idea. Can surely only be homophobia as civil partnerships is nothing to do with religion or anything. Thats why I am checking if that was actually true, I didn't realize there was a vote on them to start with tbh.

[Lilac hills]

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

Queen of being fantastic outside of her views

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Lilac hills

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

Queen of being fantastic outside of her views

Yeah this is the thing. I may disagree with her views, but I find her fantastic to watch

When watching BB, I don't really care how nice a person someone is, I care how entertaining they are

[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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

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



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.

Give it a rest old chap:shrug

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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

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



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.

You take yourself too seriously these days Jack.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

Give it a rest old chap:shrug

[Ellen]

If there was any Homophobic words or actions in the house BB would have acted as Rylan stated last night and there has not been.
I dont believe she is Homophobic at all, i also dont think she has a problem with gay people as i highly doubt she would be friends with any one gay or that anyone gay would want to be friends with her if she was Homophobic and this is clearly not the case.

[Paula D]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

Bigots calling other people bigots. It's hilarious.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

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.

She's the one that's in the BB house, others aren't. Of course people are going to talk about the way she's voted in various issues.

[Tom4784]

The whole 'You're a bigot if you call other people bigots!' argument was tired months ago. It's a silly argument that does not make much actual sense in the real world. It's just reaching.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

So why are they still bleating on fgs ?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Paula D

Bigots calling other people bigots. It's hilarious.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

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

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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

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!

[Paula D]

No it's not. It makes perfect sense.

I've quoted the dictionary definition of bigot enough times.

Look it up.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

Give it a rest old chap:shrug

Bless you I know it's embarrassing to be proven wrong but don't worry my friend

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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!

As with most years, I started off thinking Andrew was absolutely gorgeous. By the time he left I did not fancy him at all. Personality is very important.

This happens to me every year on BB. Think someone is lush then end up finding them gross. Or think someone is average and end up with a raging crush

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

So why are they still bleating on fgs ?

So what happened to people declaring "I only judge people how they are in the house" ?or is that only for people you like? I know a few people that have said that when challenged about previous housemates , talk about double standards.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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

Same here

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

People are allowed to think that someone is homophobic.

People are allowed to think many things.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Same here

We must be homophobes,OMG, string me up

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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

Good job at ignoring, kaz