People can judge on what they want, vote for who they want, think what they want. Personally, I don't tend to judge what someone does because of who someone is. For instance, Wagner was an unbelievable waste of a human being - a sexist, a bigot, a racist, an anti-semite - but he wrote beautiful music that I love to listen to. I'm not trying to argue that Ann is a good dancer lol but I don't dislike watching her dance just because I think politically her head was up her arse.

On a similar note, aren't there a few well respected German companies that did rather well out of the Nazis in WW2? I'd hate to think that I'm committing some Digital Spy crime by driving a well-known make of German car.

Ahem (from Wiki - yes I know!)

"**** was one of few Conservative MPs to support Leo Abse's Bill to decriminalise male homosexuality and voted in favour of David Steel's Bill to legalise abortion, as well as a ban on hare coursing."

Guess who - THATCHER!

.. but then again,

"She supported the retention of capital punishment and voted against the relaxation of divorce laws."

... the point is that a lot of the perceived 'evil' rightwing religious funde'mentals' are not what you think they are.

I could disturb you even more by saying the GWBush was the first US president to pray in a mosque! and the invasion of Iraq was actually a Clinton policy but hey - who gives a flying f*ck about the truth as long as popular opinion has already decided who is 'evil' and who is not.

FTR - I'm female and not white. I also don't vote as I lost the will to soon after my 19th birthday.

I'm not sure how Ann could be such a homophobic bigot considering that a large proportion of the Tories are gay...

My Mum is also a staunch Roman Catholic and shares many of Anns views, She also happens to be one on the biggest fag-hags going and I was baby sat by a gay couple for many years. My Dad (who was in the army...) didn't care as he knew they'd do a good job.

Oh I'm sorry people - are you lot expecting my Dad to have kicked their heads in because he was a soldier.

Bigotry works both ways.

Oh I don't know, I think you might be in danger of being strung up with piano wire

I did address the whole argument - but if you need clarity I'll rephrase my response.
[LIST][*]Actors performing badly will soon find themselves resting.[*]A sportsman is only as good as his last game.[*]Presenters lacking communication skills will fast become familiar with the job seekers allowance.[/LIST]
All of the above hurt no one but themselves. Ann's tenure in government on the other hand had no detrimental effect on herself but considerable impact on sections of society who want nothing more than the same recognition and rights which others take for granted.

It wouldn't matter to me if Ms.W outdanced every other contestant on SCD week in and week out. Anyone who expresses the view that:

and

will always earn my contempt - and don't forget this is the woman who supported shackling pregnant women prisoners. I could go on but I enough is as good as a feast.

I'm sure your Dad was an upstanding member of society - but I doubt if his views were as influential as Ms.W's.

Introducing Thatcher into the argument does nothing to support your argument.

Well I focused on it because I thought it very rude and in fact a pointless remark .Its not like people with an opinion of Ann are suddenly going to get over themselves becuase you told them too . I didnt want to argue with you on the rest of your points agter reading it .

I wasn't aware of just how controversial some of Ann's views were until I looked into her politics a few days ago.

I liked her even less thereafter. She's quite anti- gay/women's rights.

I wouldn't vote for her if she was my local MP and I won't ever be voting for her on Strictly.

... it depends if he pointed his SLR at you.

the Thatcher thing was an example of someone who is perceived to be so heinous that they could not have done anything good.

I noticed you've ignored the other examples. You obviously have no idea what my argument is. You've just been a prime example.

... hmmmm I wish I could be so selective when I'm reading things.

Um... ok. Good for your parents for being so open-minded I guess?

Returning to the topic of Ann, it is a fact that Ann voted against every gay rights bill in parliament when she was an MP. To me that makes her a bigot.

True, I suppose, but what about Tuffers and Gav who have "previous" for domestic and general violence? Are they better or worse than Anne, who at least exercised her views via the democratic process rather than personally and violently?

I'm sure if you dug deeply enough you'd find some past action of most competitors where others have personally suffered. Personally, I wouldn't want to have to make a judgement as to whether domestic violence is better or worse than voting to suppress the rights of a certain subset of society, so I vote based on my lecherous instincts most of the time. (Tricky to call between Nat, Kat and Aliona this year...)

I don't really judge her for having those views; I just think she is very old-fashioned in a lot of ways. She probably doesn't hate gay people. I'm sure she has very conservative views about straight people having sex outside of marriages, and about a lot of other issues.

I admire the fact that she is a strong personality and that she seems like a very straightforward person. However, she does seem quite rude and abrupt. I don't find her all that charming, and I think she's becoming more annoying as the weeks go on. A joke is a joke, but even the best joke isn't funny once it has been retold numerous times.

I have already posted my views on 'lovable' Tuffers the wife beater. I haven't seen anything to suggest that Gav is guilty of domestic or general violence but I have read that his drunken conduct in and around Cardiff leaves much to be desired.

I don't condone loutish behaviour and no doubt the antics of Gav and his mates have spoiled the odd night out for others - but they have not influenced the human rights of any other section of our society.

As far as I'm concerned no other contestant on SCD has been in a position where their influence has called into question the lifestyle or sexual orientation of others.

Ref: the emboldened assertion - you may question, but you cannot be sure that this is so. And whilst I agree that one person who suffers is one too many, I also think that anyone complicit in the denial of basic human rights affecting thousands is more than one thousand fold culpable.

I think we're on dangerous ground here...

The number of people who can be affected by a violent act is necessarily limited. If you measure things simply in numerical terms then Ms W's voting patterns in the HoC are worse than organsing the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, or coordinating the attack on the Twin Towers.

I'm sure you don't think this is the case, so I assume you must have some scale of morality, with Widders somewhere between Tuffers and Radko Mladic, which serves to demostrate again that Widders' views are just a reason not to like her, but they are not unambiguously a better reason than some others.

Perspective is everything - I'd guess that a homophobic victim of domestic violence would probably be pro-Widders and very much anti-Tuffers.

I'm not getting into a massive moral argument - i find her political views utterly abhorrent and this affects my view of her. I can't help it, that's the way it is

I don't find her funny, or entertaining, or a 'national treasure'
If other people do - well that's their lookout!

but you can't tell people who or what to care about - some people can get married to those with opposing political views. I personally couldn't because it's something I feel strongly about.

[LIST][*]Rest assured your dad's SLR would not capture anything I want to remain hidden - could you say the same about my SLR?[*]The Thatcher reference is irrelevant.[*]Your wish has been granted - your reading is up there with the most selective.[*]You're right on one score - I have no idea what your argument is about - but you did leave an unfinished sentence - of what am I a prime example.
[/LIST]You say I've ignored your examples - so


Ahem - I know too.

We've already considered the irrelevance of Thatcher in this discussion.


Your point is an opinion - nothing more. Please substantiate or provide support for this assertion.

What on earth leads you to suppose that I would be disturbed by Dubya's visit to a mosque. I, a non muslim, have vistied a number of mosques.

Can you provide proof - any link will do - that the Iraq invasion was Clinton's idea? And can you explain why when GWB took office he was tied to Bill's policy (if indeed that was his policy?)


Your point being?


.
Many people work with homosexuals - doesn't follow that they're not homophobic.

What does this prove?
Your Mum is an RC sharing Ann's views - did this include her views on equal rights for homosexuals, women's rights to embrace the priesthood, have control over their own bodies when it comes to abortion; did she agree that pregnant women prisoners should be shackled? Or did her tolerance end with sitting her baby next to a gay couple?

Was your dad aware that until 2000 homosexuals were banned from joining the Armed Services? They were considered bad for morale and vulnerable to blackmail. Your dad may have recognised the commitment and courage of his gay colleagues - doesn't alter the fact that if their lifestyle was exposed they would unceremoniously be drummed out.

Not all - not all soldiers are bigots - but tell me in what way are those who defend human rights guilty of bigotry?

I think that's been answered perfectly by many others.
However, it might be helpful to step back and view it from an outsiders perpective. Imagine the American version, and Sarah Palin being invited to take part. American celebrities seem far more outspoken about politics than their British counterparts, and frequently nail their colours to the mast.
I still believe the majority of Americans would feel that inviting Palin onto a prime time reality show would be a step too far.
The personal "baggage" of the different celebrities is largely irrelevant. As facts emerge about them, we may choose to dislike them and vote accordingly..I had not read the stuff about Tuffers, that would certainly have altered my view of his character. I guess even the political views of the contestants would influence my opinions about them.
That is still very different to an actual politician appearing on the show. Their political opinions is what defined them, they were in the position to make judgements that could affect us all. Regardless of their political pursuasion, right, left or centre, they should not be invited on shows like SCD..in my opinion.

I do. But mostly because I disagree with her political views very strongly. Unfortunately I'm not able to separate these views from the person. I must admit I took some pleasure from seeing her being spun around the floor like a bag of potatoes :P

Obviously I've touched some for of nerve with Ignazio, judging by the sheer length of their (his her?) reply. I'm not going to answer in full as a) I have to get in the shower and b) I cannot be bothered trading polysyllabics with someone with such an obvious intellectual deficit and c) I'm not an attention whore.

Bascially - the main point is thus. We don't know everything about any particular individual who's in the public eye. I personally, find it wrong pigeonhole people and to have whatever box you've shoved them in to influence any other judgement of that person. There's already a thread condeming Ann carrying on after the death of her brother. I find that a bit sick myself.

btw Ig erm... not sure where you get your info from but it was never illegal to be gay in the army (as such) for many years it operated a 'don't ask don't tell policy'. FYI Me and my partner are both serving members of HM Forces.

My mum does have those views that Ignazio has spoken of and she quite open about her faith . Her friends respect her for that. I'm not exactly happy that you're talking about my Mum in that manner, but I suppose it's my fault as I did use her as an example. Her 'tolerance' (as you call it) was based on the fact that she work as a cleaner for a gay couple and soon became good friends with them. Even helping to nurse one of them when they unfortuantely caught HIV and developed AIDS. This was in the late 80's when people were still pretty ignorant about the disease. So as much as certain individuals will think my mum is 'bigoted' I think she's a truely remarkable woman.

Bascially what I'm seeing in this thread is a lot of self important people condeming an elder lady for her old fashioned views. It's almost a competition to see who can hate her more.

I'm sure someone else has said as much, but I've got rather bog-eyed reading all this, if I judge Ann on what she thinks/doesn't think, has done or hasn't done, then I should do so on everyone else and I hadn't even got a clue who Kara and Scott were before they appeared on SCD. And I don't have the energy to wonder too much. So I'm happy to vote on the dancing alone. I rarely watch TV and SCD for all its failings is the highlight of the year - the sequins, the footwork, the journey (sorry), the blind judges, notdead. I want to lose myself in the silliness on a Saturday night, not ponder the forces of good and evil.

That's just my thought; if anyone wants to factor in Ann's thoughts and views, that's fine, it's a free world.

Based on the dancing though, I wish she'd gone in the first 3 weeks...the time cannot come soon enough for me.

The thing is, you could have made that point (about people with controversial views still being human or not being monsters or capable or being capable of compassion etc. - Ann lived with her elderly mother until she died) without any references to Margaret Thatcher or your parents.

Most of what you posted was simply irrelevant, and bizarrely so.

And your strawman argument about people assuming your father is homophobic because he was a soldier is just daft, and your argument that Ann Widdecombe cannot be a homophobe because some Tories are gay is just silly.

As far as the OP concerned...

I think you would have had a point if Ann had turned out to be a decent dancer, but she isn't.

If there was another ex-Tory politician on the show who had similar views to Anne on homosexuality and law and order (especially on drugs) and women priests etc., but was as physically fit as Felicity and as talented as Pamela, then I would probably be encouraging people to vote for them despite what they think of her as a person.

I think Paul Daniels is a horrid little man, but I would have recognised good dancing if he had managed to do any.

I don't really care about Ann's political views, but I do care about the fact that she's rubbish.

I think you meant to say "I've touched a raw nerve.." I agree with you as some here seem to spend a lot of time going on and on about homophobia, shackled female prisoners etc etc. They are entitled to their views but banging on endlessly in a SCD Forum is becoming both tedious and irrelevant. As the OP said, this really has little to do with the programme and a lot to do with political views some of which are little more than biggotry in their own right.

Interesting arguments from others on here.

But I did want to address the above by saying that OK, maybe I was a little rude to get across my strength of feeling on the 'get over themselves' thing, but I wasn't slagging off the other contestants AS CONTESTANTS.

I was doing it to make the point that my opinion of their day job has nothing to do with what I think of them as dancers. If you want examples the other way, I was actually a fan of Alesha's band Mis-teeq, but couldn't stand her on the show. And my admiration for Ray Fearon as an actor didn't make me like his dancing any better.

Others have made the point that they can't separate out the bile that Ann's views bring out in them from the persona they see on SCD. I think my problem with that stems from my belief that this forum is not really any place for political debate when it has nothing to do with the context of the show. Anton's 'p***' rant last year is one thing, but Ann's views on an (admittedly pretty stupid and badly worded) section of a law that was repealed several years ago is quite another.

But hey, it's a free country, and I suppose I am as entitled to express the above view as others are to argue about long-dead laws if they wish.

For those who thought I was being rude simply for the sake of being rude, knobs to the lot of you

The 'don't ask, don't tell' policy existed because it was illegal for homosexuals to serve. While this policy was in place if someone was proven to be homosexual they were kicked out. Around 60 servicemen/women were discharged anually for this reason. Three of these people took their cases to the European Court for Human Rights and won hence the decision to change the law in 2000.

This pretty much sums up my feelings too.

The examples given by the OP are really not comparable ~ being a bit ropey in Eastenders or playing a sport which some people might not be interested in is not the same as being a bigot and attempting to convert ones bigotted views into policy which will affect people's lives in a very real way.

Edit: More to the point, I don't find her and Anton remotely entertaining, and I don't understand why we're supposed to think she is a 'game old bird' and jolly good fun to boot