[Withano]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Or demand special treatment for their"cause"

you're not even making sense anymore. You're just stuck on repeat.

[Robertocarlo]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Only "their cause" counts !

Sorry, but you're coming across as a typical UKIP voter to me?!

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Robertocarlo

Sorry, but you're coming across as a typical UKIP voter to me?!

Thats maybe because i vote for them, are you a clairvoyant ?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Robodog

1. Christophobia very much exists. Approx 3000 christians were killed for their faith, in 2017 alone.

This is very real and equally as serious as any other type of persecution.



2. "A majority can never truly be discriminated against because they are the majority."

Discrimination is discrimination.
No matter what the population 'majority/minority' statistics are.
You don't hurt any more or less, according to the number of people in the area who fit your 'type'.

To say that one group of people can be victims and another group can't be victims - that is discriminating in itself.

Who decides these 'groups' anyway?

We are all individuals, with our individual experiences.
We are all a minority - of one.
And as individuals, we stand equal. That's the whole point of equality, a level playing field of individuals.

It's not equality when you start to segregate people off into groups or 'types', and then 'rate' those 'types' according to your world view: putting one 'type' above the other.
It's exactly what racists do: see people not as individuals, but as 'types' and then rate them according to their world view.
We have to be careful not to fall into the same trap of segregating and judging people by our own stereotypical 'types', even if we do mean well.

The individuals of the majority have the same equal rights as the individuals of the minority - or what's the point?

.

Too right

It’s like this warped view that some people have that minorities can’t be racist.Or white people can’t experience racism.

I experienced much racism as a white person when i went to school in an Asian area.
Cars of twenty something blokes slowly driving past in cars spitting at me and shouting ‘white bastard’ amongst other things.

Not to mention this ‘Christophobia’ is’nt real.Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world.

This ranking peoples victimhood based on some ‘group’they happen to be part of flies in the face of true equality.

[Robertocarlo]

Originally Posted by smudgie

not sure I understand that Chuff.
The way is see it is people are just wanting to be treat as an equal, equality should be a right, not a cause.

Precisely 'smudgie', equality and not special treatment that's all the LGBT community want.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Too right

It’s like this warped view that some people have that minorities can’t be racist.Or white people can’t experience racism.

I experienced much racism as a white person when i went to school in an Asian area.
Cars of twenty something blokes slowly driving past in cars spitting at me and shouting ‘white bastard’ amongst other things.

Not to mention this ‘Christophobia’ is’nt real.Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world.

This ranking peoples victimhood based on some ‘group’they happen to be part of flies in the face of true equality.

Racism works both ways, there are areas in my town where white people daren't walk in fear of being spat at and told to leave" their area"

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Or demand special treatment for their"cause"

So wanting equality is demanding "special treatment"?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Racism works both ways, there are areas in my town where white people daren't walk in fear of being spat at and told to leave" their area"

Yep.Just because people don’t see it they think it doesn’t exist.Or some on the far left of politics try and make excuses for it.
Pitting ‘groups’ against each other is not in any way going to achieve equality.Just create divisions and resentment between people.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Yep.Just because people don’t see it they think it doesn’t exist.Or some on the far left of politics try and make excuses for it.
Pitting ‘groups’ against each other is not in any way going to achieve equality.Just create divisions and resentment between people.

True my friend

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by reece(:

If it was a younger HM doing it, they'd be pulled up and warned

You are correct.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by -Sue-

I like andrews antics he and shane have made me chuckle lots this series (although also found the c bomb too much) I would have been angry too if someone had brought my family into a 'nomination' that was really a moment for 1 to 1 conversation.. which ann managed to do with ashley but in regards to andrew she just made it hugely public and awkward...

Fair point Sue.
I agree all through.

Actually I've liked near all the housemates this series.

The showmance annoyed me but that's done with and didn't take over the highlights too much.
I agree on Andrew too, he's been entertaining to me anyway,as indeed most of them have.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Cherie

The thing most people seem to be ignoring is that Andrew is straight, so when Ann is commenting it is towards one gay and one straight person, if this was a gay couple I might have more sympathy, but it's a pretend romance

Thank you
People keep ignoring that

[Jack_]

Ann's a great housemate and tbh I may even want her to win, but the woman really is pathetic and a disgrace

Her thinly veiled homophobia is appalling, and I'm not surprised Andrew reacted as he did. At the start of last night's episode I thought 'hm the c word seems a little strong' but within the context of what she said to him I don't blame him at all, if someone brought my family into a scenario like that I'd be saying much the same if not worse. Who is she to insinuate that his mum and nan won't be proud of him for play fighting with another man? That's literally all they were doing, it wasn't a PDA at all

By the way, the 'she's just a prude' stuff isn't much better an excuse either. I couldn't care less, she's in the ****ing Big Brother house not the Oval Office. Yes, she has every right to her opinion and I completely respect the fact that she is from a different generation that has a lower tolerance level for certain behaviour. However, that doesn't give her the right to expect that everyone else should have to censor themselves around her, and quite frankly I don't know why they are and are pandering to her nonsense. If she doesn't like it, she can leave the room.

Finally, this whole 'she's a frail old vulnerable woman, we mustn't speak about her like that' is a load of patronising AGEIST (yes I said ageist) ****e too. In much the same way that any true feminist doesn't think that women shouldn't be allowed to express their sexuality, or that doors should be opened for them, or that they're a vulnerable homogenous group that must be protected at all costs (in other words the very antithesis of feminism) - so too must people realise that if you don't want ageism to be a thing, you cannot treat young and old people differently. If someone is being a ****, aged seven, seventeen or seventy - you are entitled to express that. One's age is no excuse. Either you own your behaviour or you don't. Either you're on an equal footing to everyone else or you're not. Putting older people on a pedestal as if they're delicate little flowers is so patronising it's unbelievable. Dare I say had Ann ****ing Widdecombe heard what Andrew had said, I'm pretty damn sure she'd have been able to handle herself. And rightly so.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Ann's a great housemate and tbh I may even want her to win, but the woman really is pathetic and a disgrace

Her thinly veiled homophobia is appalling, and I'm not surprised Andrew reacted as he did. At the start of last night's episode I thought 'hm the c word seems a little strong' but within the context of what she said to him I don't blame him at all, if someone brought my family into a scenario like that I'd be saying much the same if not worse. Who is she to insinuate that his mum and nan won't be proud of him for play fighting with another man? That's literally all they were doing, it wasn't a PDA at all

By the way, the 'she's just a prude' stuff isn't much better an excuse either. I couldn't care less, she's in the ****ing Big Brother house not the Oval Office. Yes, she has every right to her opinion and I completely respect the fact that she is from a different generation that has a lower tolerance level for certain behaviour. However, that doesn't give her the right to expect that everyone else should have to censor themselves around her, and quite frankly I don't know why they are and are pandering to her nonsense. If she doesn't like it, she can leave the room.

Finally, this whole 'she's a frail old vulnerable woman, we mustn't speak about her like that' is a load of patronising AGEIST (yes I said ageist) ****e too. In much the same way that any true feminist doesn't think that women shouldn't be allowed to express their sexuality, or that doors should be opened for them, or that they're a vulnerable homogenous group that must be protected at all costs (in other words the very antithesis of feminism) - so too must people realise that if you don't want ageism to be a thing, you cannot treat young and old people differently. If someone is being a ****, aged seven, seventeen or seventy - you are entitled to express that. One's age is no excuse. Either you own your behaviour or you don't. Either you're on an equal footing to everyone else or you're not. Putting older people on a pedestal as if they're delicate little flowers is so patronising it's unbelievable. Dare I say had Ann ****ing Widdecombe heard what Andrew had said, I'm pretty damn sure she'd have been able to handle herself. And rightly so.

Awesome post.
Where have you been Jack_

This for me the post of the series.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Ann's a great housemate and tbh I may even want her to win, but the woman really is pathetic and a disgrace

Her thinly veiled homophobia is appalling, and I'm not surprised Andrew reacted as he did. At the start of last night's episode I thought 'hm the c word seems a little strong' but within the context of what she said to him I don't blame him at all, if someone brought my family into a scenario like that I'd be saying much the same if not worse. Who is she to insinuate that his mum and nan won't be proud of him for play fighting with another man? That's literally all they were doing, it wasn't a PDA at all

By the way, the 'she's just a prude' stuff isn't much better an excuse either. I couldn't care less, she's in the ****ing Big Brother house not the Oval Office. Yes, she has every right to her opinion and I completely respect the fact that she is from a different generation that has a lower tolerance level for certain behaviour. However, that doesn't give her the right to expect that everyone else should have to censor themselves around her, and quite frankly I don't know why they are and are pandering to her nonsense. If she doesn't like it, she can leave the room.

Finally, this whole 'she's a frail old vulnerable woman, we mustn't speak about her like that' is a load of patronising AGEIST (yes I said ageist) ****e too. In much the same way that any true feminist doesn't think that women shouldn't be allowed to express their sexuality, or that doors should be opened for them, or that they're a vulnerable homogenous group that must be protected at all costs (in other words the very antithesis of feminism) - so too must people realise that if you don't want ageism to be a thing, you cannot treat young and old people differently. If someone is being a ****, aged seven, seventeen or seventy - you are entitled to express that. One's age is no excuse. Either you own your behaviour or you don't. Either you're on an equal footing to everyone else or you're not. Putting older people on a pedestal as if they're delicate little flowers is so patronising it's unbelievable. Dare I say had Ann ****ing Widdecombe heard what Andrew had said, I'm pretty damn sure she'd have been able to handle herself. And rightly so.

[Robertocarlo]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Thats maybe because i vote for them, are you a clairvoyant ?

It was pretty obvious. Anyone with views like yours often tend to be UKIP voters. Oh well, never mind soon the Party will be dead in the water so who will you support next?!

[Ant.]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Thats maybe because i vote for them, are you a clairvoyant ?

[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Ann's a great housemate and tbh I may even want her to win, but the woman really is pathetic and a disgrace

Her thinly veiled homophobia is appalling, and I'm not surprised Andrew reacted as he did. At the start of last night's episode I thought 'hm the c word seems a little strong' but within the context of what she said to him I don't blame him at all, if someone brought my family into a scenario like that I'd be saying much the same if not worse. Who is she to insinuate that his mum and nan won't be proud of him for play fighting with another man? That's literally all they were doing, it wasn't a PDA at all

By the way, the 'she's just a prude' stuff isn't much better an excuse either. I couldn't care less, she's in the ****ing Big Brother house not the Oval Office. Yes, she has every right to her opinion and I completely respect the fact that she is from a different generation that has a lower tolerance level for certain behaviour. However, that doesn't give her the right to expect that everyone else should have to censor themselves around her, and quite frankly I don't know why they are and are pandering to her nonsense. If she doesn't like it, she can leave the room.

Finally, this whole 'she's a frail old vulnerable woman, we mustn't speak about her like that' is a load of patronising AGEIST (yes I said ageist) ****e too. In much the same way that any true feminist doesn't think that women shouldn't be allowed to express their sexuality, or that doors should be opened for them, or that they're a vulnerable homogenous group that must be protected at all costs (in other words the very antithesis of feminism) - so too must people realise that if you don't want ageism to be a thing, you cannot treat young and old people differently. If someone is being a ****, aged seven, seventeen or seventy - you are entitled to express that. One's age is no excuse. Either you own your behaviour or you don't. Either you're on an equal footing to everyone else or you're not. Putting older people on a pedestal as if they're delicate little flowers is so patronising it's unbelievable. Dare I say had Ann ****ing Widdecombe heard what Andrew had said, I'm pretty damn sure she'd have been able to handle herself. And rightly so.

I have to disagree Jack

If you need to discuss something with an older person, it is not hard to put it in a polite manner to them. If they agree or disagree, discuss in a manner which is not patronizing towards them either. They will not take umbrage with this, what is so hard in not using profanities every other word unless your vocabulary is limited. Being young is no excuse either, everyone knows what is right or wrong.

People respond to how they are treated, all ages the same. Why you felt the need to call Ann ****ing Widdicombe when she has never sworn at anyone in the house or felt the need to because she can quite easily get her point across without using profanities, is not her problem but the person who is using it.

I am sick to the back teeth of all this homophobic nonsense being aimed at anyone who doesn't toe the Gay Cause line. I couldn't care less who sleeps with who, Gay, straight, men, women, whatever, whoever and their dog. What I do not want to see is blatant exhibitioning in front of the cameras for airtime between two people who only want to be famous and will only be famous for five minutes.

I am sure Ann didn't want to see it either and she is allowed to say so. Just the same as she removes herself from the room so others can enjoy themselves late at night. She did remove herself from the room every evening, so how is that her censoring others.

If the general public agreed with Andrew, he would still be there but he was booted out first. They have kept Ann in every time she was nominated against India, Maggie and she had the most votes.

Both Johnny and Daniel wanted her to win tonight, does that sound as if they had anything against her?

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.
Even with her views, even with her track record and even at her age.

Think on.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Awesome post.
Where have you been Jack_

This for me the post of the series.

Thanks Joey! I've been a bit behind on the series - had to catch up on about ten episodes this week, still not fully back into the swing of on-season yet (and it's nearly over!). Life's been busy

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.
Even with her views, even with her track record and even at her age.

Think on.

Once again another member of TiBB who doesn't properly read posts before they respond to them.

Literally, from the FIRST LINE OF MY POST:

Originally Posted by Jack_

Ann's a great housemate and tbh I may even want her to win, but the woman really is pathetic and a disgrace

Where did I say I found her boring? Or that I disliked the fact she's popular?

READ POSTS BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO THEM

Now, on to the rest...

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

I have to disagree Jack

If you need to discuss something with an older person, it is not hard to put it in a polite manner to them. If they agree or disagree, discuss in a manner which is not patronizing towards them either. They will not take umbrage with this, what is so hard in not using profanities every other word unless your vocabulary is limited. Being young is no excuse either, everyone knows what is right or wrong.

You're literally patronising older people in this very paragraph? 'If you need to discuss something with an older person' ... 'they will not take umbrage with this'? With all due respect, people over the age of 70 aren't a bunch of delicate little flowers that need you to speak for them and tell them what they will and will not like - as if you know every older person on planet earth. And yes, I realise I may be saying this to someone this age (I don't know either way) but the point will still stand even if you are.

Anyway...I don't remember an occasion where a housemate has had a debate with Ann and hasn't been polite? Or one where they've patronised her? I seem to remember all of the debates and discussions with her (and others) being conducted in a rather civilised manner actually, and rightfully so. I'm a bit unsure as to what you're supposed to be referencing? My post was about Ann's nomination of Andrew - which, by the way - he didn't patronise or be impolite towards her at all during.

I'm afraid there's no such thing as 'right or wrong' either. The world isn't black and white. You may not like profanities, others may not mind them, others may love them - variety is the spice of life. There is no inherent natural law or Book of Life that says they must not be used in conversation, that is just something that you and some others believe which is of course fine but it doesn't make it a matter of 'right or wrong'.

The point at the end of my post was that in putting older people on a pedestal where they must be protected and respected at all costs - is in actual fact an example of ageism, against older people. It's patronising. In much the same way, if someone suggested a woman shouldn't ever pay a bill, or that women are a vulnerable homogenous group that must be protected by big strong men and that they aren't capable of doing certain things - that would be sexist. It doesn't matter if the intent is honourable, if you are Othering someone and making out that they aren't capable of defending themselves, it's pretty damn patronising. Especially when many of them are. Many women, many old people, many disabled people.

Just because someone is seventy is doesn't mean they aren't immune from being insulted, or insulting someone themselves. They are still human.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

People respond to how they are treated, all ages the same. Why you felt the need to call Ann ****ing Widdicombe when she has never sworn at anyone in the house or felt the need to because she can quite easily get her point across without using profanities, is not her problem but the person who is using it.

The first line is correct, in fact this response to you is an exact example of that. I'm a firm believer of that mentality actually. But, again, I don't see what relevance this has to the purpose of my post which was about Andrew's reaction to Ann's nomination of him and the rest of the housemates' tendency to bend over backwards for her.

I called her 'Ann ****ing Widdecombe' in the context of a sentence where I was explaining how she isn't a walkover, and that she would have been more than capable of defending herself had Andrew insulted her to her face. The use of the f word was for effect, because it's ANN WIDDECOMBE. Her entire career shouldn't lend anyone to the notion that she is a frail old woman that couldn't hold her own, the very idea is laughable - hence why I emphasised her name. I'd have thought that would've been self-explanatory.

I don't have a problem. I wasn't swearing at Ann. Again, not sure what you're on about.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

I am sick to the back teeth of all this homophobic nonsense being aimed at anyone who doesn't toe the Gay Cause line. I couldn't care less who sleeps with who, Gay, straight, men, women, whatever, whoever and their dog. What I do not want to see is blatant exhibitioning in front of the cameras for airtime between two people who only want to be famous and will only be famous for five minutes.

I am sure Ann didn't want to see it either and she is allowed to say so. Just the same as she removes herself from the room so others can enjoy themselves late at night. She did remove herself from the room every evening, so how is that her censoring others.

The Gay Cause line sounds good, how much a minute do they charge?

Now you see this is where I and a lot of others differ, I don't tend to believe that people in showmances - or even people who are friends on Big Brother - are playing up to the cameras deliberately. I'm not a cynic, I take things at face value, some showmances are entertaining, others are beyond dull (like Ashley and Ginuwine's) but that doesn't mean I don't believe them. I think it's perfectly possible to develop feelings for someone in an environment like that in a short space of time, so I don't tend to buy into the whole 'they're faking it' crap.

As for Andrew and Shane...is it really beyond the realms of possibility that they were just...erm...you know, having fun? People play fight sometimes. Two of my ex housemates used to, I know another two people that literally start punching each other as a greeting most times they see one another. I can imagine that in the Big Brother house, time passes very slowly and the downtime can get pretty boring - so play fighting (which is what they were doing, not some weird homoerotic sex act that Ann thinks Andrew's mum and nan will be ashamed of) seems an inevitability to me. What really is the problem?

Ann is allowed to say she doesn't like it. I didn't say she wasn't. In fact, AGAIN, I actually said the opposite

Originally Posted by Jack_

Yes, she has every right to her opinion and I completely respect the fact that she is from a different generation that has a lower tolerance level for certain behaviour.

She does remove herself from the room, yes, and so she should. She's even allowed to nominate Andrew for it if she sees fit.

The actual issue here - the one I raised in my post - and the one that annoyed Andrew (of which I agree with), is her insinuating that his mother and grandmother wouldn't want to see him play fighting with another man/would be ashamed of it/wouldn't be proud of him for it. Once again, it wasn't a homoerotic sex act or public display of affection, it was play fighting. Now why would anyone's family be ashamed of their male relative for play fighting with another man? What an absurd and offensive notion, and he had every right to be annoyed by it - hence why I'm not surprised he spoke about her in the way he did. If someone had brought my family into it, I'd have said the same if not worse.

My confusion is also with the rest of the housemates pandering her sensitivities, and we all know this is the case because several of them have spoke about them feeling like they have to censor themselves around her. Her presence or dare I say intimidating nature is obviously strong because the same effect doesn't seem to happen around Amanda or Wayne. Again, it's perfectly fine for Ann to not like some of the conversations or behaviour, but if she doesn't like it she should remove herself from the room (as she sometimes does), the housemates shouldn't feel like they need to modify their behaviour. It's the Big Brother house, not the House of Commons.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

If the general public agreed with Andrew, he would still be there but he was booted out first. They have kept Ann in every time she was nominated against India, Maggie and she had the most votes.

The public vote on BBUK is a barometer of nothing. Not of who's a good housemate, and certainly not of who's right and who's wrong.

Think on yourself.

[Yaki da]

It's a made up word with no objective meaning used to pathologise people who hold traditional moral positions. People who use it are bigots who prefer to diagnose those who they disagree with rather than debate them.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Yaki da

It's a made up word with no objective meaning used to pathologise people who hold traditional moral positions. People who use it are bigots who prefer to diagnose those who they disagree with rather than debate them.

Denying gay people equality is a "traditional moral position".

Of course it is.

"Tradition" is often used by the bigoted in a bad effort to explain away their discrimination.

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Denying gay people equality is a "traditional moral position".

There was already equality. We all had the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Thanks Joey! I've been a bit behind on the series - had to catch up on about ten episodes this week, still not fully back into the swing of on-season yet (and it's nearly over!). Life's been busy



Once again another member of TiBB who doesn't properly read posts before they respond to them.

Literally, from the FIRST LINE OF MY POST:



Where did I say I found her boring? Or that I disliked the fact she's popular?

READ POSTS BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO THEM

Now, on to the rest...



You're literally patronising older people in this very paragraph? 'If you need to discuss somėething with an older person' ... 'they will not take umbrage with this'? With all due respect, people over the age of 70 aren't a bunch of delicate little flowers that need you to speak for them and tell them what they will and will not like - as if you know every older person on planet earth. And yes, I realise I may be saying this to someone this age (I don't know either way) but the point will still stand even if you are.

Anyway...I don't remember an occasion where a housemate has had a debate with Ann and hasn't been polite? Or one where they've patronised her? I seem to remember all of the debates and discussions with her (and others) being conducted in a rather civilised manner actually, and rightfully so. I'm a bit unsure as to what you're supposed to be referencing? My post was about Ann's nomination of Andrew - which, by the way - he didn't patronise or be impolite towards her at all during.

I'm afraid there's no such thing as 'right or wrong' either. The world isn't black and white. You may not like profanities, others may not mind them, others may love them - variety is the spice of life. There is no inherent natural law or Book of Life that says they must not be used in conversation, that is just something that you and some others believe which is of course fine but it doesn't make it a matter of 'right or wrong'.

The point at the end of my post was that in putting older people on a pedestal where they must be protected and respected at all costs - is in actual fact an example of ageism, against older people. It's patronising. In much the same way, if someone suggested a woman shouldn't ever pay a bill, or that women are a vulnerable homogenous group that must be protected by big strong men and that they aren't capable of doing certain things - that would be sexist. It doesn't matter if the intent is honourable, if you are Othering someone and making out that they aren't capable of defending themselves, it's pretty damn patronising. Especially when many of them are. Many women, many old people, many disabled people.

Just because someone is seventy is doesn't mean they aren't immune from being insulted, or insulting someone themselves. They are still human.



The first line is correct, in fact this response to you is an exact example of that. I'm a firm believer of that mentality actually. But, again, I don't see what relevance this has to the purpose of my post which was about Andrew's reaction to Ann's nomination of him and the rest of the housemates' tendency to bend over backwards for her.

I called her 'Ann ****ing Widdecombe' in the context of a sentence where I was explaining how she isn't a walkover, and that she would have been more than capable of defending herself had Andrew insulted her to her face. The use of the f word was for effect, because it's ANN WIDDECOMBE. Her entire career shouldn't lend anyone to the notion that she is a frail old woman that couldn't hold her own, the very idea is laughable - hence why I emphasised her name. I'd have thought that would've been self-explanatory.

I don't have a problem. I wasn't swearing at Ann. Again, not sure what you're on about.



The Gay Cause line sounds good, how much a minute do they charge?

Now you see this is where I and a lot of others differ, I don't tend to believe that people in showmances - or even people who are friends on Big Brother - are playing up to the cameras deliberately. I'm not a cynic, I take things at face value, some showmances are entertaining, others are beyond dull (like Ashley and Ginuwine's) but that doesn't mean I don't believe them. I think it's perfectly possible to develop feelings for someone in an environment like that in a short space of time, so I don't tend to buy into the whole 'they're faking it' crap.

As for Andrew and Shane...is it really beyond the realms of possibility that they were just...erm...you know, having fun? People play fight sometimes. Two of my ex housemates used to, I know another two people that literally start punching each other as a greeting most times they see one another. I can imagine that in the Big Brother house, time passes very slowly and the downtime can get pretty boring - so play fighting (which is what they were doing, not some weird homoerotic sex act that Ann thinks Andrew's mum and nan will be ashamed of) seems an inevitability to me. What really is the problem?

Ann is allowed to say she doesn't like it. I didn't say she wasn't. In fact, AGAIN, I actually said the opposite



She does remove herself from the room, yes, and so she should. She's even allowed to nominate Andrew for it if she sees fit.

The actual issue here - the one I raised in my post - and the one that annoyed Andrew (of which I agree with), is her insinuating that his mother and grandmother wouldn't want to see him play fighting with another man/would be ashamed of it/wouldn't be proud of him for it. Once again, it wasn't a homoerotic sex act or public display of affection, it was play fighting. Now why would anyone's family be ashamed of their male relative for play fighting with another man? What an absurd and offensive notion, and he had every right to be annoyed by it - hence why I'm not surprised he spoke about her in the way he did. If someone had brought my family into it, I'd have said the same if not worse.

My confusion is also with the rest of the housemates pandering her sensitivities, and we all know this is the case because several of them have spoke about them feeling like they have to censor themselves around her. Her presence or dare I say intimidating nature is obviously strong because the same effect doesn't seem to happen around Amanda or Wayne. Again, it's perfectly fine for Ann to not like some of the conversations or behaviour, but if she doesn't like it she should remove herself from the room (as she sometimes does), the housemates shouldn't feel like they need to modify their behaviour. It's the Big Brother house, not the House of Commons.



The public vote on BBUK is a barometer of nothing. Not of who's a good housemate, and certainly not of who's right and who's wrong.

Think on yourself.

Oh dear, calm down, have I dared to disagree.

No need to shout.

You may know what you meant but it may not read the same way to others.

What is hard to understand in treating others how you wish to be treated yourself. This is not ageist or treating people in a specific way, it is just plain good manners. Calling a 70 year old woman Ann ******* Widdecome is not for effect, it is downright unecessary rudeness in any context.

In fact the whole tone of this post is rudeness, yet you seem to want to discuss in this manner because I totally disagree with so many of your points.

I do not agree it was merely play fighting. They both said they had become aroused. We did not see when Ann was called to the Diary room and passed those two, at that time it has been said they were imitatating sexual positions. They had been flirting for weeks, going into the toilets together, it may have started as play fighting but it became more as it went along. Ann said their behaviour was BEGINNING to cross the line and she wanted them to realise that their families were watching.

The fact Andrew apologized to his mother tonight was telling, that poor woman was mortified but tried to stand up for him under such awful circumstances, you had to feel sorry he had put her through it. I wonder where his father was?

The fact Ann might be able to handle any disgusting crass abuse hurled at her is an asinine excuse because she shouldn't have to. That is excusing the abuser when it is he that should be castigated, not her having to deal with it.

I cannot quite believe the naievity of saying you don't think they play up to the cameras, this is a well known ploy, even the housemates say it themselves. Have you not heard them?

I am sorry you don't believe in the voting public, they played a blinder tonight voting Andrew out first, didn't they? Mostly decent people who didn't like what they saw and heard and dumped him good and proper. He might have won if he had just had a modicum of decency and respect for himself and not his over riding arrogance in thinking he could get away with anything.

No need to be so aggressive, write in bold or be so annoyed. It is an alternative opinion, just like Ann has an alternative opinion to most in the house. Diversity makes the world go around and long may it do so. Agree nicely to disagree rather than call people profanities for effect. But, if you call me that ********** poppsywoppsy for disagreeing with you, I will report you only joking for effect

This insomnia has its plus points.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Yaki da

There was already equality. We all had the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Your answers are exposing your bigotry or your very poor education.

What about those who wanted to marry members of the same sex? Has that always been equal when people like Ann sought to keep that inequality for no reason other than their own narrow minded judgement?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

Oh dear, calm down, have I dared to disagree.

No need to shout.

You may know what you meant but it may not read the same way to others.

Disagree all you like, but don't talk down to people. You tried to patronise me, so I responded in kind. I appreciate you may not know me as well as others do on here but that's the way I roll for future reference, I'd have been happy (and would've preferred) to have a civilised discussion with you but the minute you try to patronise me you'll be getting it back. Like you said (and I noted), treat people how you wish to be treated.

I'm not entirely sure how typing 'Ann's a great housemate and tbh I may even want her to win' in the first line of one's post can then be misconstrued by someone else as finding them boring and disliking the fact they're popular, but sure...

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

What is hard to understand in treating others how you wish to be treated yourself.

I don't know, you tell me - you seem to have been confused by the tone of my response.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

This is not ageist or treating people in a specific way, it is just plain good manners. Calling a 70 year old woman Ann ********** Widdecombe is not for effect, it is downright unecessary rudeness.

So not only do you try to tell me how all older people would prefer to converse (and how they'll 'not take umbrage' with this and with that), you're now telling me the intent of my own prose? Am I reading this correctly?

Let me just make this clear - I'm the one that gets to decide the intent of my use of profanity, not you. And do you know why? Because I'm the one that used it, funnily enough. Now let me explain again, but this time provide the context so we're absolutely crystal clear about its usage.

Originally Posted by Jack_

Putting older people on a pedestal as if they're delicate little flowers is so patronising it's unbelievable. Dare I say had Ann ****ing Widdecombe heard what Andrew had said, I'm pretty damn sure she'd have been able to handle herself. And rightly so.

In case you hadn't realised, in these three sentences, I was actually complimenting Ann. The point I was making - which is blindingly obvious to be quite frank - is that Ann Widdecombe has spent the best part of her life being a strong, independent, female politician with conviction. She is not and never has been a frail, vulnerable, sensitive, delicate little flower that needs protecting. In fact, I think the very insinuation would highly insult her, even at the grand old age of 70.

So, again, although I'm not sure why I'm bothering because you'll pretend you don't understand - the use of the f word was to emphasise her name. ANN. WIDDECOMBE. ANN WIDDECOMBE. Not a wallflower. Not a walkover. Not a frail old woman. Ann Widdecombe.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

In fact the whole tone of this post is rudeness, yet you seem to want to discuss in this manner because I totally disagree with so many of your points.

Nope. Again, I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me - this is a forum after all. What I have a problem with is people attempting to patronise me, you tried it and so received it back. Remember that saying again? Treat others how you wish to be treated. Now, if you wish we can make the rest of this discussion civilised and productive - but that's on you, I follow your lead.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

I do not agree it was merely play fighting. They both said they had become aroused.

I've just watched it back, because I didn't remember that and wanted to double check for myself. Unless you can hear or find something I haven't (and I'll be happy to admit that I was wrong) then that's incorrect:

Youtube video

They are play fighting in that video. Nothing more, nothing less. You and others are only making it into more than what it is because of other instances of them flirting, but this one wasn't.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

They had been flirting for weeks, going into the toilets together, it may have started as play fighting but it became more as it went along. Ann said their behaviour was BEGINNING to cross the line and she wanted them to realise that their families were watching.

Now again, unless I've misunderstood or missed the clip (and I'll be happy to be shown otherwise), Ann's nomination was about the incident I've just posted above - if I remember correctly they actually included it as a 'flashback' in the edit to give some context to what she was saying. If that is correct, I see nothing in that clip that is anywhere even NEAR a line, let alone 'beginning to cross it'. But again, that isn't my issue nor was it Andrew's - it was about the fact she said his mother and grandmother would be watching, i.e. an insinuation they wouldn't be happy/proud of or would be ashamed/embarrassed about his behaviour in that particular incident. That incident being - as I've just pointed out - play fighting. Two men. Play fighting. Could you please enlighten me as to what is so awful about that? So 'over the line' that his mother and grandmother wouldn't be happy? I think it's an offensive insinuation, so did Andrew, and his reaction was justified. Only bigoted relatives would have any issue with two men play fighting.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

The fact Andrew apologized to his mother tonight was telling, that poor woman was mortified but tried to stand up for him under such awful circumstances, you had to feel sorry he had put her through it. I wonder where his father was?

Now that really is something you're going to have to watch back. Emma showed him a VT of him calling Ann a '****', he was embarrassed, and apologised to the audience and to his mother for what he had said in that instance. It was quite clear what he was apologising for and it wasn't for play fighting with Shane.

What does his father have to do with any of this? Don't tell me you're 'one of them'...deary me. Is a woman not capable of raising a child on her own? Is that what you're insinuating?

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

The fact Ann might be able to handle any disgusting crass abuse hurled at her is an asinine excuse because she shouldn't have to. That is excusing the abuser when it is he that should be castigated, not her having to deal with it.

Do you know what Andrew shouldn't have to deal with? Having his relatives brought into a nomination he received and having someone insinuate his mother and grandmother wouldn't be proud of him because he was play fighting with another man. Bring someone's family into a situation that doesn't involve them, and you face the consequences. I'll just point out at this junction that he never actually said it to her face either, so she never had to 'deal with it'.

Anyway, why shouldn't she have to deal with it if she's dishing it out? You've said on two or three occasions now that people should treat others how they wish to be treated, and I agree. Well guess what? That includes Ann Widdecombe. If she is prepared to insult others and bring their family into irrelevant situations, then she needs to be prepared to face the consequences. Being seventy years old is not an excuse or a get-out-of-jail-free card. And the idea that it should be is patronising to both Ann Widdecombe and other older people.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

I cannot quite believe the naievity of saying you don't think they play up to the cameras, this is a well known ploy, even the housemates say it themselves. Have you not heard them?

I have heard them, yes, thank you. That doesn't mean they do, or are. So you basically believe that any and all showmances and friendships on Big Brother are fake and they're just playing up to the cameras? Or is it just people you dislike that you think this about? How very cynical of you. I didn't like Ashley or Ginuwine but that doesn't mean I think they just made the whole thing up for airtime.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

I am sorry you don't believe in the voting public, they played a blinder tonight voting Andrew out first, didn't they? Mostly decent people who didn't like what they saw and heard and dumped him good and proper. He might have won if he had just had a modicum of decency and respect for himself and not his over riding arrogance in thinking he could get away with anything.

I'm sorry you do believe in them, to be honest. They routinely ruin the show and then complain that it's boring. You may believe they played a blinder but I'm afraid I think the producers made yet another clueless decision in allowing a triple eviction to occur with just four nominees (especially those ones), which enabled yet another clueless decision by the voting public...mind you it's not like they had much to work with so the blame rests with the producers on this one for me. Anyway, I digress...I like(d) both Ann and Andrew, and thought they complimented each other well, they brought the best (or worst, however you see it) out in each other and finally injected some life and intrigue into this series. It's those kind of dynamics that keep the show going, but I realise not everybody recognises that.

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

No need to be so aggressive, write in bold or be so annoyed. It is an alternative opinion, just like Ann has an alternative opinion to most in the house. Diversity makes the world go around and long may it do so. Agree nicely to disagree rather than call people profanities for effect. But, if you call me that ********** poppsywoppsy for disagreeing with you, I will report you only joking for effect

I never wrote in bold. I accept your alternative opinion. I accept Ann's right to an alternative opinion. I said variety is the spice of life in an earlier response to you. If you wished to agree nicely to disagree you should've thought about that in your first response to me. I don't care about threats of reports, this is an internet forum and I'm not a baby, I prefer to discuss things rather than run off to the mods...for effect