How can you tell someone's colour, physical ability and sexuality from internet posts?

Challenging opinions is one thing. Stifling them is another.

No disabled black lesbians then....

In all honesty I find myself ridiculously annoyed at all this. I do not support what he said at all and have completely opposing beliefs, however, I don't think he said anything horribly offensive and just sounded like a man expressing his opinions. I also find the 'if he said black instead' comments completely ridiculous. Evander's opinion is homosexuals choose to be so. Comparing that opinion to that of a racist is plain ridiculous. He thinks homosexuals choose to be so, therefore thinks they can choose not to be. Racists just hate people because they are of a different race which, of course, can't be a choice.

They need it for Daily Star headlines.

Evander?

The irony is he was telling these views to a woman who in her last media interview before entering the house said she enjoys sex with women as well as men but would choose at the moment only to be in a relationship with a man!

You'll never get a job with Channel5 , expressing such radical views as that!

Do you have any proof for this claim? I thought not.

This "...or people will be offended" thing is the wrong end of the wedge.

I wasn't aware he complained about "political correctness gone mad", which was my point in the opening salvo

wait so its now bb's job to 'challenge' certain peoples opinions? mind you its only certain opinions they wish to challenge obvious not the popular held ones. bb acts now too much of a nanny -they 'challenge' him ask him about what he said and then give him a warning, its not even a democratic way of behaving

She said that!? How very offensive!

Oh yes, Luisa has a choice.

Exactly. Equating homophobic views (held by most orthodox religions) with racism just illustrates the uninformed and illogical thinking which results from lack of proper debate about these important issues. I too hold completely different views to the ones he expressed but I absolutely support his right to express his views in the measured terms in which he did. Stifling freedom of speech actually hinders progressive thought.

I fail to see what's so complicated about this.

Before Evander went into the house he agreed to a set of rules. He broke one of them (whether or not you think it fair, it's there) and Big Brother responded accordingly.

I myself think it's PC gone mad and I am only 2 out of your 3.

Please producers, warn Dappy not to get his penis out, as it might cause offence.
But if he does, make sure you show it.

The funniest part (or maybe not funny) is that Big Brother has such a large gay audience so to express an opinion that could be construed as homophobic on a show like this is just stupid.

Careful you don't get yourself vilified

As was the filthy sex talk by that Jasmine woman that offended Lionel (and probably a lot of viewers too)

Agree 100%. Best post I've read all night.

But his free speech hasn't been stifled. People conflate "free speech" with "being able to say whatever the 'eck i want, where I want, how I want and to whom I want" (more commonly known as 'freedom of expression').

Free Speech also comes with a responsibility for what you say and the impact of what you say has on others (and/or whether it breaks any laws).

But hey, the peanut gallery will do what they do so well regardless: OUTRAGEE!!!

It could fall under this (from wikipedia):

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. All the offences in Part 3 attach to the following acts: the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.[8]

And an example of where this Act has been used:

On 13 October 2001, Harry Hammond, an evangelist, was arrested and charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) because he had displayed to people in Bournemouth a large sign bearing the words "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord". In April 2002, a magistrate convicted Hammond, fined him £300, and ordered him to pay costs of £395.[18][19][20]

This. Instead of warning hms... It just scares them off from saying anything wrong

No. His opinion was undoubtedly offensive but it is his opinion and I want housemates to share their opinions. I would much rather people could speak freely about their homophobic views so that we can discuss them and show up the ridiculousness and unacceptability of them. That is, instead of us all, Evander included being treated like children by BB.

Having said all that I did enjoy seeing BB tell off the former Undisputed World Champion Heavyweight Boxer