[MB.]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

You've got to ask yourself why do bb keep putting in nasty twats
So they are to blame aswell

Yes, it's their fault that Winston is a twat, that makes perfect sense

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

So he's not responsible for his own actions now? Again with the reaching.

bb aired his views so it could be said that they share them!

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by parmnion

bb aired his views so it could be said that they share them!

Dead right, Im sure there was lots of other things he's said or done that BB could have used in the task, they cherry picked that comment

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by parmnion

bb aired his views so it could be said that they share them!

Only if you're desperately reaching.

[Beso]

Emma knew what his views were before he went in, so where was her outrage on opening night?

[GoldHeart]

Hypocrisy . Because why was Katie Hopkins and Jim Davidson loved when they offend everyone on the planet. Both are ignorant and disgusting lowlifes and yet they have tons of support
Nobody can justify they're actions so why are people acting like the ukip guy is the only ignorant **** to be on Cbb , I personally can't stand any of these 3 they're all pathetic creatures and the media give them too much air time
And also the producers are to be blamed for always putting in controversial twats for ratings

[cheapbbfan]

I dont see why what Winston said outside the house is relevant to this show? He was annihilated over some previous comment and that wasnt right. Had he said it inside the house, they'd have brought him to the DR, given him a formal warning and told him that type of talk is offensive and not permitted by the rules. He didnt say it in the house, so I dont see why they brought it, only to blow it up into an issue, where they were potentially offending people. I guess they got their storyline but it was ugly how this all went down

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by cheapbbfan

I dont see why what Winston said outside the house is relevant to this show? He was annihilated over some previous comment and that wasnt right. Had he said it inside the house, they'd have brought him to the DR, given him a formal warning and told him that type of talk is offensive and not permitted by the rules. He didnt say it in the house, so I dont see why they brought it, only to blow it up into an issue, where they were potentially offending people. I guess they got their storyline but it was ugly how this all went down

[Tarryn]

Even though some of the things he said in both his VT & outside the house disgusts me I can't help feel that it was a stitch-up from start to finish.
Other former HM's such as Jim Davison had some pretty horrific views on certain things yet was never taken to task.
The thing last night when past things came back to "haunt" the HM's was purely designed to humiliate Winston. None of the others had anything like that.
If Emma was so offended by Winston's views then why not challenge him when he was about to enter the house on launch night ?.
If BB insist on putting people in the house with such extreme views then at least treat everybody the same.
He should never been allowed in.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Tarryn

Even though some of the things he said in both his VT & outside the house disgusts me I can't help feel that it was a stitch-up from start to finish.
Other former HM's such as Jim Davison had some pretty horrific views on certain things yet was never taken to task.
The thing last night when past things came back to "haunt" the HM's was purely designed to humiliate Winston. None of the others had anything like that.
If Emma was so offended by Winston's views then why not challenge him when he was about to enter the house on launch night ?.
If BB insist on putting people in the house with such extreme views then at least treat everybody the same.
He should never been allowed in.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Tarryn

Even though some of the things he said in both his VT & outside the house disgusts me I can't help feel that it was a stitch-up from start to finish.
Other former HM's such as Jim Davison had some pretty horrific views on certain things yet was never taken to task.
The thing last night when past things came back to "haunt" the HM's was purely designed to humiliate Winston. None of the others had anything like that.
If Emma was so offended by Winston's views then why not challenge him when he was about to enter the house on launch night ?.
If BB insist on putting people in the house with such extreme views then at least treat everybody the same.
He should never been allowed in.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Tarryn

Even though some of the things he said in both his VT & outside the house disgusts me I can't help feel that it was a stitch-up from start to finish.
Other former HM's such as Jim Davison had some pretty horrific views on certain things yet was never taken to task.
The thing last night when past things came back to "haunt" the HM's was purely designed to humiliate Winston. None of the others had anything like that.
If Emma was so offended by Winston's views then why not challenge him when he was about to enter the house on launch night ?.
If BB insist on putting people in the house with such extreme views then at least treat everybody the same.
He should never been allowed in.

My point exactly and the producers keep putting narrow minded idiots in the house for entertainment but then some get their arses kissed and others get evicted and hated
And yes they shouldn't put those people in but they do it all the time
BB is a carcrash and I can't believe it hasn't been axed
The show is to blame for shrowing a ukip member in a house with 2 gay guys and a gay presenter hosting the show
It was soo obvious the producers wanted it to kick off for ratings and its pathetic

It's like deliberately putting in someone who bad mouths disabled folk and then having a an an amputee person also in the house
It's to cause arguments and they like all hell breaking lose
That's why I hate it it's soo conniving and such a calculated plan

[Beso]

Originally Posted by cheapbbfan

I dont see why what Winston said outside the house is relevant to this show? He was annihilated over some previous comment and that wasnt right. Had he said it inside the house, they'd have brought him to the DR, given him a formal warning and told him that type of talk is offensive and not permitted by the rules. He didnt say it in the house, so I dont see why they brought it, only to blow it up into an issue, where they were potentially offending people. I guess they got their storyline but it was ugly how this all went down

Well said



In a nutshell..the whole premise of big brother is for us to watch and judge how people from differing backgrounds etc interact in a house without outside manipulation.

[jet]

Originally Posted by cheapbbfan

I dont see why what Winston said outside the house is relevant to this show? He was annihilated over some previous comment and that wasnt right. Had he said it inside the house, they'd have brought him to the DR, given him a formal warning and told him that type of talk is offensive and not permitted by the rules. He didnt say it in the house, so I dont see why they brought it, only to blow it up into an issue, where they were potentially offending people. I guess they got their storyline but it was ugly how this all went down

His VT showed him as homophobic though so he knew - and we knew - that that was always going to be part of his storyline and not something that was 'outside' the house. It's how BB works. Everything that came up in the task was already covered in all the individual VT's. I'm also pretty sure that the celebs are told what they will be asked about in any task that will reveal personal details about them. BB isn't out to ruin anyone's career - they couldn't risk being sued. It is then the celebs responsibility how they respond.
Usually if a celeb is disliked by many over something they have said or done it outside the house it gives them a chance to redeem themselves if they so wish and it has worked for many of them. In Winston's case he didn't explain his position without giving offence to many and the responsibility for that is all his.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by cheapbbfan

I dont see why what Winston said outside the house is relevant to this show? He was annihilated over some previous comment and that wasnt right. Had he said it inside the house, they'd have brought him to the DR, given him a formal warning and told him that type of talk is offensive and not permitted by the rules. He didnt say it in the house, so I dont see why they brought it, only to blow it up into an issue, where they were potentially offending people. I guess they got their storyline but it was ugly how this all went down

What Winston said outside the house is relevant because it's absolutely why he was cast for the show in the first place.

[rionablue]

Presenters on the whole are always encouraged to try and remain neutral. This never happens on either BB or BBBOTS ( look at the lambasting some housemates got last year while others were held on pedestals no matter what they did) Up to this point I have never seen Emma interview someone in the manner she interviewed Winston last night. That being said, no matter what happens from now on Winston DID say that gay people adopting a child is like child abuse. This is one of the most foul disgusting things I have ever heard. I am a Christian also and I believe that in a changing world everyone is entitled to find love whether it be with the same sex or the opposite sex.

It was drilled into my brain when I was young that the Church is opposed to homosexual love and that love should ALWAYS be between a man and a woman. One of the MAIN reasons I love our current Pope is that he loves all parts of society and while he knows the teachings of the church he opens his arms and his heart to everyone which as a Christian I believe all the leaders of our church should do. I was sickened by Winstons statement and deeply sorry for the hurt it must have caused all my gay friends and all the gay people in our society who are looking for exactly the same thing as hetrosexuals, love marriage and children. Emma tried her best to make that creep cringe and justify his actions but the Church that he professes to believe in ISNT the one I am part of.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by rionablue

Presenters on the whole are always encouraged to try and remain neutral. This never happens on either BB or BBBOTS ( look at the lambasting some housemates got last year while others were held on pedestals no matter what they did) Up to this point I have never seen Emma interview someone in the manner she interviewed Winston last night. That being said, no matter what happens from now on Winston DID say that gay people adopting a child is like child abuse. This is one of the most foul disgusting things I have ever heard. I am a Christian also and I believe that in a changing world everyone is entitled to find love whether it be with the same sex or the opposite sex.

It was drilled into my brain when I was young that the Church is opposed to homosexual love and that love should ALWAYS be between a man and a woman. One of the MAIN reasons I love our current Pope is that he loves all parts of society and while he knows the teachings of the church he opens his arms and his heart to everyone which as a Christian I believe all the leaders of our church should do. I was sickened by Winstons statement and deeply sorry for the hurt it must have caused all my gay friends and all the gay people in our society who are looking for exactly the same thing as hetrosexuals, love marriage and children. Emma tried her best to make that creep cringe and justify his actions but the Church that he professes to believe in ISNT the one I am part of.

Nowhere in The New Testament does it mention 'homosexuality' - NOWHERE.

So any instruction, guidance, or teaching by 'The Church', that homosexuality is wrong, abberant or against the teachings of Jesus Christ, is the invention of those 'Churches' themselves and has NOTHING to do with Christ, or The New Testament, and therefore, nothing to do with Christianity.

If Winston TRULY believes the inane drivel he has espoused, then he has been 'brainwashed' by the homophobic prejudice of MAN and is not therefore 'remaining true to his faith', because nowhere is Christ - the fountainhead of Christianity- on record as being judgemental of homosexuals.

I have written on another thread that Winston was 'set up' by CBB, so I will not repeat it here, but I just wanted to clear up the gross mistake that Winston and others, it seems, are making in blaming 'Christianity' for his views.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Nowhere in The New Testament does it mention 'homosexuality' - NOWHERE.

So any instruction, guidance, or teaching by 'The Church', that homosexuality is wrong, abberant or against the teachings of Jesus Christ, is the invention of those 'Churches' themselves and has NOTHING to do with Christ, or The New Testament, and therefore, nothing to do with Christianity.

If Winston TRULY believes the inane drivel he has espoused, then he has been 'brainwashed' by the homophobic prejudice of MAN and is not therefore 'remaining true to his faith', because nowhere is Christ - the fountainhead of Christianity- on record as being judgemental of homosexuals.

I have written on another thread that Winston was 'set up' by CBB, so I will not repeat it here, but I just wanted to clear up the gross mistake that Winston and others, it seems, are making in blaming 'Christianity' for his views.

WRONG ......... https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

WRONG ......... https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality

Sorry, I should have made myself crystal clear:

I am aware of those few passages which you cite, and familiar with the highly contentious translations of the words "Malakoi" and "Arsenokoitai", and also the fact that the word 'Sodomy' - which has become a byword for anal intercourse and the 'foundation' upon which so many Biblical Text interpreters wrongly base their interpretations upon – has NO connotations with homosexuals or homosexuality itself, because NOWHERE in Genesis 19 is anal intercourse mentioned let alone 'homosexuality.

So, just HOW the word Sodomy came to be accepted as a definition of anal intercourse is one mystery , but just how it came to be almost exclusively an 'homosexual' act in most people's mind, is a far greater one – don't heterosexuals widely practice anal intercourse?

As it is, the few passages in the New Testament which purport to denounce 'homosexuality' are highly questionable, and what I meant to say, and should have said, is that nowhere in the New Testament does GOD in the form of Jesus The Christ, mention Homosexuality.

The later Paulean letters and sermons are the words of MAN and NOT the words of GOD – neither the Father or Son.

Therefore, if Paul or Timothy – or any New Testament writer – is writing anything other than the direct teachings and words of Jesus Christ, then the sentiments expressed in such writings are THEIRS and NOT Christ's, and as such I discount them as I see fit.

Paul and other writers may have been 'Christians' but they are NOT Christ, and – to me therefore, as a non-orthodox Christian - their anti-homosexual opinions are not infallible and are about as valid as my pro-homosexual opinion.

If therefore, the Christian Church teaches anti-homosexual or 'homophobic' views, then they should make it clear that what they are basing their teachings on are the words of MAN and NOT GOD.

If Winston has been brainwashed, then it is by the perverse minds of other men, not the infallible words of God.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Sorry, I should have made myself crystal clear:

I am aware of those few passages which you cite, and familiar with the highly contentious translations of the words "Malakoi" and "Arsenokoitai", and also the fact that the word 'Sodomy' - which has become a byword for anal intercourse and the 'foundation' upon which so many Biblical Text interpreters wrongly base their interpretations upon – has NO connotations with homosexuals or homosexuality itself, because NOWHERE in Genesis 19 is anal intercourse mentioned let alone 'homosexuality.

So, just HOW the word Sodomy came to be accepted as a definition of anal intercourse is one mystery , but just how it came to be almost exclusively an 'homosexual' act in most people's mind, is a far greater one – don't heterosexuals widely practice anal intercourse?

As it is, the few passages in the New Testament which purport to denounce 'homosexuality' are highly questionable, and what I meant to say, and should have said, is that nowhere in the New Testament does GOD in the form of Jesus The Christ, mention Homosexuality.

The later Paulean letters and sermons are the words of MAN and NOT the words of GOD – neither the Father or Son.

Therefore, if Paul or Timothy – or any New Testament writer – is writing anything other than the direct teachings and words of Jesus Christ, then the sentiments expressed in such writings are THEIRS and NOT Christ's, and as such I discount them as I see fit.

Paul and other writers may have been 'Christians' but they are NOT Christ, and – to me therefore, as a non-orthodox Christian - their anti-homosexual opinions are not infallible and are about as valid as my pro-homosexual opinion.

If therefore, the Christian Church teaches anti-homosexual or 'homophobic' views, then they should make it clear that what they are basing their teachings on are the words of MAN and NOT GOD.

If Winston has been brainwashed, then it is by the perverse minds of other men, not the infallible words of God.

Isnt the entire human race the embodiment of god though, blah de lbah load of hocus pocus bollox.

[rionablue]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Nowhere in The New Testament does it mention 'homosexuality' - NOWHERE.

So any instruction, guidance, or teaching by 'The Church', that homosexuality is wrong, abberant or against the teachings of Jesus Christ, is the invention of those 'Churches' themselves and has NOTHING to do with Christ, or The New Testament, and therefore, nothing to do with Christianity.

If Winston TRULY believes the inane drivel he has espoused, then he has been 'brainwashed' by the homophobic prejudice of MAN and is not therefore 'remaining true to his faith', because nowhere is Christ - the fountainhead of Christianity- on record as being judgemental of homosexuals.

I have written on another thread that Winston was 'set up' by CBB, so I will not repeat it here, but I just wanted to clear up the gross mistake that Winston and others, it seems, are making in blaming 'Christianity' for his views.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion as am I of mine.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by rionablue

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion as am I of mine.

I was not berating or targetting you, I was really saying that the Christian Church should never preach homophobia based on the teachings of Jesus the Christ because Christ did not mention homosexuality anywhere - let alone condemn it.

[Kazanne]

I get that people are outraged Lostie,I think most of us were quite shocked,what I don't get is BB gave him that question,BB knew his views before he entered so WHY did they let him in ? people have been so 'angry' about this since his VT,what is it achieving ? 3 days of none stop outrage,when will, it stop? LOL,he's hated by the people he targeted so I don't see what else can happen.Yes he's a homophobic old fart,does that hurt us? not really.

[Lostie!]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I get that people are outraged Lostie,I think most of us were quite shocked,what I don't get is BB gave him that question,BB knew his views before he entered so WHY did they let him in ? people have been so 'angry' about this since his VT,what is it achieving ? 3 days of none stop outrage,when will, it stop? LOL,he's hated by the people he targeted so I don't see what else can happen.Yes he's a homophobic old fart,does that hurt us? not really.

It definitely hurts some people, and understandably so.

Speaking personally, I'm not as offended for myself as I could have been mainly because it's just some guy who I'd never heard of before and who I'm clearly never gonna really look up to in any way. But if someone who I respected or someone I was close to said the same things, I'd be mortified. That said, his words still annoy me because there's no need to make people feel like deviants or second-class citizens because they happen to be gay.

But that doesn't mean I support things like the crowd being their usual bloodthirsty self last night, regardless of what someone's done or said I want to watch the interview and hear what they have to say about it.

[Shaun]

This just in: homophobia doesn't hurt a straight woman