I responded to the OP - your OP. Would you prefer to be ignored? If so, you're picking a strange way of going about it.

And I have indeed read the other posts.

Any danger of you answering my question now?

Firstly, she has also had twenty years of employment as a Tory MP, espousing views which were, at best, fundamentalist Roman Catholic interpretations of how UK society should be run. Should she also be rewarded for that?

Secondly, what about the millions of other carers in the UK who do all that and more - do they also deserve a slot on Strictly? If so, we may need a bigger ballroom.


Her views have nothing to do with her modesty - a modest person wouldn't throw herself into reality shows, or indeed enter politics in the first place - and everything to do with her religion.

I fully agree with all the points DavidJames made in his response and would add: of course she has done what you say. She has also broadcast views that many people find offensive, but is now repackaging herself as some kind of 'national treasure', assisted by Moira Ross. Are we all supposed to forget everything she said?

I didn't say she was a prude - I said she was playing the prude. There's a difference (again, I agree with DavidJames). It's all an act. If you want to go along with it, fine - but please don't dismiss those of us who have a different take on it.

As for her comments being recorded in Hansard: perhaps CBBC ought to point that out the relevant passages to the children they are broadcasting to, so that they can learn about Ann's views, rather having 'the lovely Ann' forced down their throats?

BTW, I do fully blame Moira Ross and her team for their role in whitewash Ann. But 'frivolity' is just what we are supposed to see. She is being used to sell Strictly as the show's 'biggest' character - and that is why there is obviously an edict from on high to generate interest in her, in the hope she remains in as long as possible. Combine this with Ann's own stated desire to win, and you have a toxic combination - as far as SCD's future is concerned.

Damn fine post

I can't possibly add anything to the many great posts refuting the OP's view (and those of others making similar points) but I am slightly surprised nobody has mentioned the whole Michael Howard 'something of the night' thing. At that point, Ann criticised her boss in such a dramatic way that:
a) she was never going to get a serious job in government ever again
B) she massively upped her profile as a 'conviction politician' (probably an oxymoron when you get to MP level) and paved the way for the whole National Treasure nonsense and a lucrative post-Parliament career

Hell, even I briefly forgot how objectionable I found many of her views as a result of the sheer joy of hearing somebody calling out the even more despicable Howard...

I suppose the bottom line is that politicians shouldn't be regarded as 'celebs' and it's a bit of a depressing indictment on our whole system if they are. And they just don't belong on Strictly.

OMG... I haven't drunk enough wine for this.

So let me get this straight...

a) It's OK to to call someone callous and create a whole thread(s) about how evil they are because they 'carried' on after a bereavement, especially if that person is a percieved 'Homophobe', devout Roman Catholic and ex-Tory politician. Even more so if all three heinous boxes are ticked. This is rendered even more outragous if they dance like a sack of spuds being swirled in a bath of pancake mix. Therefore it's OK to not extend to them any human grace or dignity as they themselves have not to other sections in society (even though that may make you as bad as them but it doesn't, as you represent the forces of all that are good and wonderful in this world).

Right... I'm re-educated now. Excellent...

Someone asked what I meant by prime example. erm... If you are screaming about the injustices of 'intolerance' and yet you yourself are intolerant... erm well... I see intolerance everyday and the first thing I do is try and find out why. I don't scream 'Bigot' and start stabbing them with pencils. Maybe I should.

b) Anton's now a racist

c) John Barrowman is aces!

I dont know where that thread is gone about her bereavement but I also dont know who you are aiming the rant at , because the vast majority of answers said it was out of line So who are you pointing the finger at exactally now ?
Bereavement aside I am not sure how to take your post or even your point .! So not sure whether to agree or not with you .!And I had no wine at all .

Oh dear Shrew, it seems you may have been drinking too much of something. No one on this thread has condoned the thread regarding her bereavement...you raised the issue of that thread earlier in one of your replies to Ignazio who replied that he/she thought that thread was unfair too*. I'm struggling to she which one of us you are calling intolerent, could you please provide an example?

Regarding points b &c they are points being discussed on a different thread and have no relevance to this argument

*Edit to say only 2 people on that thread took that view anyway, everyone else condemned them

I think you probably have - but what the heck, we all over indulge at times!

I think one has to let such things go eventually. She's lost pretty much every meaningful political argument she's ever embarked on and whereas successful ex-politicans make a fortune on the lecture circuit and win Nobel prizes, she makes her modest living on Fat-Club and SCD. Isn't this sad end to a political career enough satisfaction for you?

One of the best posts I've seen on here.

'Sad'? Are we supposed to feel sorry for her now?

I'd be perfectly satisfied with her not doing the lecture circuit and winning Nobel prizes. But why does she feel the need to do reality television shows, besides the money? Maybe her ego needs feeding more than her bank balance (which I'm sure is very healthy) ... politicians do tend to love the sound of their own voices, after all.

Yes perhaps I've drunk too much. It's just that a thread was started concerning the whole bereavement thing. That ticked me off big style. Then I came into this one and again it was all hatred and bile. I've gone from a position of mild bemusement and disinterest in her politics (because in my head she was never that influential) to genuinely feeling very sorry for the woman. She reminds me of my Mum. i.e. says one thing, then behaves in a very different manner. (yes - I've mentioned my Mum again, but she is the same shape even).

I thought she was an odd choice for a contestant, but in that I still haven't found any weird conspiracy. If she has used Strictly as a forum for her politics (i.e. expressed her views on same-sex relationships through the medium of the cha cha cha) then perhaps this constant harping on about how vile people think her politics are maybe valid.

As I recall she had a bit of a dig at Labour being in opposition (which I thought was crass, but then all politicans are), but then as far as I am aware that's been it.

In my head now I view her as a harmless old bat with a tenuous grip on reality, who's had her day in the sun and can do no more harm. Reading some stuff (not all of it posted here) It's like her very existence is an anathema to all that is kind and nice in the world. I hate to say this, but some of you are making her the underdog. I said this before and I'll say this again, it was almost like a competition was developing concerning who could hate her more.

Her dancing is utter poo and for that she should be leaving. The public are still voting for her for reasons unknown... But the public are still voting for her.

No. I was using sad in this context: "Affected or characterized by sorrow or unhappiness". From Anne's perspective, doubtless her current state of affairs compared to some of her political comtemporaries is a cause of sorrow and unhappiness.

For her "knockers" here, it should be a source of satisfaction, I'd have thought.

Please show me where the hatred and bile is. People stating that they feel unable to vote for Ann due to her politics are merely stating a personal opinion, not spouting hatred and bile

Why? I've never wished unhappiness upon her. Besides, she is doing the lecture and conference circuit so why does she need to do reality shows

Perhaps she just wanted to learn how to dance and give people a laugh at the same time?

Oh sorry (tweaks re-educated part of brain)

She is an evil old oxygen thief who craves publicity for her own nefarious ends.

*sigh* I'm not criticising her for taking part, merely questioning three left feets earlier assertation that we should feel sorry for Ann as this is the only way she can make a living. She makes a living from lectures and conferences. She doesn't need Strictly or celebrity fit club to earn a living. She has chosen to do them (as is her right).

I'm going to bed now as i'm finding your tendency to completly ignore what i'm actually saying and attribute words to me that I (nor anyone else) have never used increasingly tiresome.

I wouldn't have identified you as a "Knocker" particularly!

I didn't know she was doing the lecture circuit thing. I guess she's just an egomaniac after all. I wonder what she lectures on and who pays? If there's serious cash changing hands then it would suggest that plenty of folk want to listen to her, if only to be outraged!

As a politician, Ann's political views are part of what makes her a celebrity. If the celebrities' personalities or backgrounds didn't matter, then why doesn't SCD just employ a few ordinary citizens off the street to participate in the competition?

And don't you think Ann's political standing is a better reason to vote for her (or not), rather than the fact that so and so appears "too fake" or "too bland" on SCD? At least the former is a fact, while the latter is a matter of perception. And as you know many people vote based on these perceptions. After all these are the reasons why Rachel Stevens or Ricky Wittle lost SCD to lesser dancers.

This thread is way over the top. I must admit I do not remember anything A actually said about anything. I quite like her direct approach being from the North and having seen my country reduced to being a bankrupt cesspit then her conservatism has some appeal. Oh and gays were given a hard time when I was in the Mob but there again so were a lot of others that didn't conform to accepted norms.

That's debatable. While one may be fact and the other opinion, the first is also about Ann outside of her dancing while many would claim the second to be intrinsic to Rachel or Ricky's performance. They're both valid reasons not to vote because they matter to the individual and it's the individual who pays for the call.

I don't care that Ann is on the show from a personal perspective. I was even mildly entertained by her first couple of performances. However, I'd never have been able to support her as a contestant even if she'd been fantastic - that's just how I feel. The fact that her performances have now become the equivalent of an only vaguely amusing joke repeated ad nauseam is something of a relief as it means there's no reason to watch her either.

I'd just say that if a Politician has the urge to move from the political sphere into the 'celebrity' one they have to accept that there will be people wiho still associate them with the views they held - especially if it was the way they acted and their views as a Politician that helped in the transformation in the first place.

I wouldn't say anyone's reason is better than anyone else's, but certainly voting for Ann (or not) based on her political views is much more objective than the factors you quote. Even Ann's political supporters can't deny her views; it's just a matter of whether an individual agrees with them and how seriously they take the issues. Whether someone is fake, bland or - heaven forbid - arrogant, is subjective itself.

Not sure objectivity and SCD naturally go together, though!

Possibly the most even handed way of looking at this is Ann vs Pamela.

Both of a similar age and both known via their personalities and ideas.

There are several threads disliking Pam and several threads bemoaning Ann.

The BBC seem to be trying to sell Pam on being Billy's wife (fact). Where they are over selling Ann on being the "nations favourite" (fiction).

The only difference between the two that the OP thinks we should consider is who can dance or entertain.

In these circumstances Pam wins hands down. She can dance and IMHO entertain. Whether well enough or for long enough is another matter.

Never found humiliation comedy funny or entertaining.