[Trip]

Originally Posted by Yaki da

I'm not religious, yet I largely agree with her.

As for her faith being "mindless". No, that's just a modern prejudice. The truth is Christianity can boast of an impressive philosophical and theological tradition.

I make a distinction between faith and religion.

[Twosugars]

Ann doesn't seem to be fond of scientific evidence either

She has expressed a variety of views on scientific issues such as climate change but has been opposed to legislation reducing emissions. Her views on the subject appear to have hardened over time. In 2007, she wrote that she did not want to belittle the issue but was sceptical of the claims that specific actions would prevent catastrophe,[18] then in 2008 that her doubts had been "crystalised" by Nigel Lawson's book An Appeal to Reason,[19] before stating in 2009 that "There is no climate change, hasn’t anybody looked out of their window recently?"[20] She was one of the five MPs who voted against the Climate Change Act 2008.[21] In 2011 she expressed the view that "climate change money should go to armed services".[22] The previous year, she voted to support a parliamentary motion supporting homeopathy, criticising the Science and Technology Committee's Report on the subject

Wikipedia

[HBIC]

Originally Posted by Yaki da

Good for her. I admire a person who has the independence of mind to not just mindlessly fall into line with the egalitarian zeitgest of our age, which is based on childish notions of equality.

Unlike most politicians, she had a certain integrity about her.

and despite posts like this, I get a warning for implying that Ann's fans agree with her views. I mean come on, it's not baiting if it's true.

[MB.]

So are we ignoring external context and only basing our opinions on what we see on the show, or are we using phrases like "egalitarian zeitgeist" as part of a discussion on Celebrity Big Brother? Which is it?

[Jase.]

"childish notions of equality"

I. have. heard. it. all.

Christ.

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by Ja$e

"childish notions of equality"

I. have. heard. it. all.

Christ.

You've heard very little in your life if a comment like that is shocking to you.

[Jase.]

Originally Posted by Yaki da

You've heard very little in your life if a comment like that is shocking to you.

Shocking? Nah. Preposterous? Absolutely.

[AnnieK]

Lol at all those spouting hate for her fans. The likelihood is not many (if any) knew about her coversion therapy views. If they had been common knowledge they would have been ALL over this forum...endless threads.

Certainly Shane J, who has done an awful lot of research didnt know as there is no way he would have let that particular view slide if he knew (quite rightly) so whilst this forum is up in arms about Ann fans....let them do their research and see her views before blanket condemning them for supporting a women who they have probably only just found out believed in this ****ing awful "therapy". Judge HER but not her fans.....

[JerseyWins]

Some of that is crossing lines for sure, if totally accurate and unexaggerated, but still. "I judge her as Ann Widdecombe, a silly giggly woman who eats chocolate biscuits in bed."

[Robertocarlo]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

Hmm

I must say, that although I too find her too toxic to win and want Shane J to win, her one redeeming feature, in my eyes, was that she voted IN FAVOUR of the BAN of Fox Hunting! She's an animal lover by all accounts.

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by Robertocarlo

I must say, that although I too find her too toxic to win and want Shane J to win, her one redeeming feature, in my eyes, was that she voted IN FAVOUR of the BAN of Fox Hunting! She's an animal lover by all accounts.

I disagree with her on that one.

[Marches]

A lot of these votes are pretty bad but Ann has been a fantastic housemate (far better than the rest of them really) and people like Amanda and such have shown that you can find common ground and enjoy a person despite conflicting political opinion

[bots]

I have always thought the majority of Ann's views sucked all the way back to when she was voting, but that's not what being a hm on big brother is about, at least not for me anyway. I look to be entertained. As India put it herself in the house, it's not panarama, so why should it be viewed like panarama outside the house either?

I haven't seen the show in the last week, but the shows I watched, I found her consistently entertaining, and inoffensive ... I couldn't really ask for more

[montblanc]

horrible woman.

[Twosugars]

Well, I suppose that's where we differ. I can't put aside what a HM stands for. It's too big a part of them, I mean, their views and past actions.
If you take the logic of just judging them as they are in the house then even a serial killer might be charming to be around for a few weeks. I'm taking this argument ad absurdum, of course. I'm not comparing Ann, a dogmatic right-wing former politician with intimacy issues to a dangerous killer.

I agree with everyone's efforts in there to bring a human side of Ann out. Whatever you think of individual HMs, they all tried to engage her in a positive way. I'm sure it will do her a lot of good and maybe in time, lead to her changing some of her preconceptions.
But I don't agree with ignoring or brushing aside her core beliefs because it's inconvenient to challenge them (like Amanda or Wayne or all others, except ShaneJ or Andrew, do). It compromises their integrity and looks false.

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Well, I suppose that's where we differ. I can't put aside what a HM stands for. It's too big a part of them, I mean, their views and past actions.
If you take the logic of just judging them as they are in the house then even a serial killer might be charming to be around for a few weeks. I'm taking this argument ad absurdum, of course. I'm not comparing Ann, a dogmatic right-wing former politician with intimacy issues to a dangerous killer.

I agree with everyone's efforts in there to bring a human side of Ann out. Whatever you think of individual HMs, they all tried to engage her in a positive way. I'm sure it will do her a lot of good and maybe in time, lead to her changing some of her preconceptions.
But I don't agree with ignoring or brushing aside her core beliefs because it's inconvenient to challenge them (like Amanda or Wayne or all others, except ShaneJ or Andrew, do). It compromises their integrity and looks false.

this!

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Well, I suppose that's where we differ. I can't put aside what a HM stands for. It's too big a part of them, I mean, their views and past actions.
If you take the logic of just judging them as they are in the house then even a serial killer might be charming to be around for a few weeks. I'm taking this argument ad absurdum, of course. I'm not comparing Ann, a dogmatic right-wing former politician with intimacy issues to a dangerous killer.

I agree with everyone's efforts in there to bring a human side of Ann out. Whatever you think of individual HMs, they all tried to engage her in a positive way. I'm sure it will do her a lot of good and maybe in time, lead to her changing some of her preconceptions.
But I don't agree with ignoring or brushing aside her core beliefs because it's inconvenient to challenge them (like Amanda or Wayne or all others, except ShaneJ or Andrew, do). It compromises their integrity and looks false.

Don't be silly it does nothing of the sort, have all the HMs been interogated on their political or religious views, no they haven't, Amanda and Wayne did not research Ann before they went into the house because they went in to get a fee and perhaps have the experience, Shane J researched her, not sure if he researched anyone else but I think its a first for CBB for someone to own up that they had researched someone before going into the house instead of going in with an open mind

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Cherie

[/B]

Don't be silly it does nothing of the sort, have all the HMs been interogated on their political or religious views, no they haven't, Amanda and Wayne did not research Ann before they went into the house

I'd imagine he researched everybody as he is from abroad.

You think Amanda or Wayne lived under a rock all their lives? Ann has been a prominent public figure for decades.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

I'd imagine he researched everybody as he is from abroad.

You think Amanda or Wayne lived under a rock all their lives? Ann has been a prominent public figure for decades.

Do you think Malika or G researched anyone, they are from abroad too, he is just a little too desperate, and it goes against the whole premise of the show, with regard to Amanda and Wayne, could you tell me everything they did in their lifetime as you seem to expect them to know every detail of Ann Ws, I would hazard a guess nobody on here knew much about her voting record either as there wasn't a peep about it during her time in Strictly

[Twosugars]

Tbh, since when researching before you go on a long tv programme where you're forced to live with strangers is something to be ashamed of?
Wouldn't you if you could?
I think most of them do, Shane mentioned it as a matter of course.

[Marches]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Well, I suppose that's where we differ. I can't put aside what a HM stands for. It's too big a part of them, I mean, their views and past actions.
If you take the logic of just judging them as they are in the house then even a serial killer might be charming to be around for a few weeks. I'm taking this argument ad absurdum, of course. I'm not comparing Ann, a dogmatic right-wing former politician with intimacy issues to a dangerous killer.

I agree with everyone's efforts in there to bring a human side of Ann out. Whatever you think of individual HMs, they all tried to engage her in a positive way. I'm sure it will do her a lot of good and maybe in time, lead to her changing some of her preconceptions.
But I don't agree with ignoring or brushing aside her core beliefs because it's inconvenient to challenge them (like Amanda or Wayne or all others, except ShaneJ or Andrew, do). It compromises their integrity and looks false.

It’s not about inconvenience, Amanda gets she isn’t going to change Ann’s views on stuff so she just accepts and loves her as a person

Shane j isn’t bothered bout changing her views he just wants to push a, imo malicious, narrative. I wouldn’t like Ann if she forced her views down people’s throats, but she doesn’t so I can put them aside and appreciate her as a person

[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Well, I suppose that's where we differ. I can't put aside what a HM stands for. It's too big a part of them, I mean, their views and past actions.
If you take the logic of just judging them as they are in the house then even a serial killer might be charming to be around for a few weeks. I'm taking this argument ad absurdum, of course. I'm not comparing Ann, a dogmatic right-wing former politician with intimacy issues to a dangerous killer.

I agree with everyone's efforts in there to bring a human side of Ann out. Whatever you think of individual HMs, they all tried to engage her in a positive way. I'm sure it will do her a lot of good and maybe in time, lead to her changing some of her preconceptions.
But I don't agree with ignoring or brushing aside her core beliefs because it's inconvenient to challenge them (like Amanda or Wayne or all others, except ShaneJ or Andrew, do). It compromises their integrity and looks false.

Ann is no serial killer, this exaggeration is a step too far.

Her core beliefs are hurting no one at the moment because she has retired and her views are now ineffective.

These views will die out in time when the older generation meets their maker and fingers crossed the next generation can move forwards without the hate and vitriol shown on here by her detractors.

There is nothing anyone can do to change her, she is content within her skin. I do not think with all the pontificating in the world has made Shane J happy with his.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by poppsywoppsy

Ann is no serial killer, this exaggeration is a step too far.

Can you understand English?
I wrote:

I'm not comparing Ann, a dogmatic right-wing former politician with intimacy issues to a dangerous killer.

[poppsywoppsy]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Can you understand English?
I wrote:

In your first paragraph, it was a comparison.

The fact you negated it later did not remove why you compared them in the first place, the inference had been made.

No personal comments please

[Robertocarlo]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Well, I suppose that's where we differ. I can't put aside what a HM stands for. It's too big a part of them, I mean, their views and past actions.
If you take the logic of just judging them as they are in the house then even a serial killer might be charming to be around for a few weeks. I'm taking this argument ad absurdum, of course. I'm not comparing Ann, a dogmatic right-wing former politician with intimacy issues to a dangerous killer.

I agree with everyone's efforts in there to bring a human side of Ann out. Whatever you think of individual HMs, they all tried to engage her in a positive way. I'm sure it will do her a lot of good and maybe in time, lead to her changing some of her preconceptions.
But I don't agree with ignoring or brushing aside her core beliefs because it's inconvenient to challenge them (like Amanda or Wayne or all others, except ShaneJ or Andrew, do). It compromises their integrity and looks false.

Absolutely spot on. I cannot look the other way just because she's entertaining, which she is tbh, but on her terms it seems. Shame that BB put her in seeing it's the Year of The Woman and she's hardly stood up for woman's rights now has she?