Spot on

completely agree.

But the man did not say the thing in the house. It was dredged up by BB to do nothing else but cause confrontation (and those doilums all fell for it).

If Winston had come out and said the abuse thing in the house, then by all means, he should have been challenged about it, hopefully by means of rational discussion, but concocting such a blatant set up with the game thing, then the eviction fix .... er twist ... and then the bullying by the presenters was just sensationalism at it's best.

Way below the belt.

He said in his VT his back would be to the wall in the house due to gay men also being there thereby implying that the gay housemates are predatory and would jump him. Nice fella eh.

I'm afraid it does. THEY asked him on the show - I'm pretty certain he he didn't ask them to be on it. They knew about him when they hired him. Don't hire someone just destroy them for sport just because they are a bit stupid, misguided, or old fashioned in their views.


The last time I looked people were entitled to hold those views if they so wished.



Because there's right and wrong ways to do things. Hounding, bullying or silencing people whose views you personally don't agree with with does not progress society - if anything it makes the views even more entrenched.


He didn't say them in the house though, did he? If he had, and it hadn't all just been 'manufactured' for conflict by BB I think the tenor on here would have been different today. Dredging things up that people may or may not have said in the past is not relevant to the actual program in 2016.

Yep a stupid thing to say .... as if any of the guys would have fancied him anyway! BUT it was in context of his stay in the BB house, so by all means, this is relevant to his stay in there.

What, in my opinion, isn't relevant is BB deliberately bringing up the adoption thing for no other reason than to cause conflict - something which was said several years ago and which has no bearing whatsoever on this particular show. Winston would have shown his true colours in there either way anyway, so why, oh why couldn't they have just let it pan out!

People aren't apologising for him. (well saying that if there are a small amount then they are as vile as his views)

The reason why people are outraged is because despite the fact we don't like his vile views we also don't like to see bear baiting.

Its like going back to the middle ages. He holds archaic views however 2 wrongs don't make a right and to deliberately engineer a situation like BB did to publicly humiliate him so that 2 of their presenters can let everyone know they disagree with his vile views is not right. Especially when Winston obviously isn't the cleverest tool in the box.

May as well have put him in the stocks so that Emma and Rylan could throw cabbages at him.

I have always found that Rylan is a natural in the way he engages his audience and guests. They all seem to like him. Ive always found his interviews to be far better than Emma too. Mainly because the guests he is interviewing seem to like him,

Last night to see him dancing and putting his bottom up towards Winston was disgraceful. They tell Winston not to stare and make the women feel uncomfortable (which was the right thing for BB to do and I thought Winston was a leech in the way he acted).
However then Rylan (knowing that Winston holds the views he does and doesn't want to be around a man in that way) goes out of his way to get into Winstons space. Every time he shoved his arse, whilst dancing, in Winstons direction it was like he was saying 'f you'.

I can not abide Winston. I think his views are absolutely vile however the way that Emma and then Rylan acted after BB engineered the whole thing was outrageous.

Stupid producers that thought everyone would join in and cheer the demise of him goes to prove that once again they have got it wrong. When will they learn.

Ryan especially behaved terribly getting in his space like that.

If you've read the rest of the thread you'll see that myself and others said its not just the abuse comments, its other things within the context of house and how he behaved in the aftermath of that task and his interviews. It's not just about the abuse comment, however it has been said within this thread why that's still relevant.

This thread isn't really about whether you think he's been unfairly set up or not, its about peoples attitudes and understanding toward what entitlement of opinion and freedom of speech is.

Well said. I don't think anyone on this forum has apologised for Winstons' views or behaviour. That's one subject where everyone is in agreement, his views are abhorrent. What people have an issue is with the way BB handled things.

Ive seen plenty of people on here apologising for his views with lots of "not every agrees with gay adoption" etc... You can't have it both ways, of course he is entitled to his views, in the same way anyone is allowed to challenge them. BB is a well known LGBT friendly show, he's going into the house with a number of gay HMs and HMs associated with gay rights. He can't just play the "oh Im a Christian" card and expect that to win the argument.

BB is similarly allowed to bring up his past comments because they were an extension of his attitude towards the others in the house. They do that "this housemate said what?" task nearly every series too. If you've made disreputable remarks in the past then don't play dumb when it comes back to bite you.

Except he never said it in the house, Big Brother did to boost ratings, which is worse, expressing a personal view when pressed on the subject or a company using the same words years later for gain whilst hiding behind that person to deflect responsibility for repeating it.

^^^^^ THIS^^^^^

I've got no problem with anyone challenging or picking him up on anything he's said and done in the house ....... if he was evicted on any of that, fair play, but that's not what happened is it?

Sorry .... that is not people apologising for Winston's views, it is posters who are merely stating a fact. Whether any of us like it or not, some people do not agree with gay adoption. That is not aoplogising for the man's views. Two different things.

The man is a politician. He openly admitted he went into the house to raise his profile before the London Mayoral electionater this year (in which he is a candidate). He stated he was "working" while in the house. Politicians are always being held to account by the media and public about their views/beliefs/comments. This was no different. He can't go into the house to raise his profile for an election without being challenged about controversial opinions.

Winston IS entitled to his opinion.

And people are entitled to their opinion of Winston's. And people are entitled to their opinion of Winston.

The only limit I think there should ever be on freedom of is defamation. I would allow all so called "hate speech" even. I want to know what people really think.

Winston is a thick bigot with serious issues, I'm glad I know what he thinks. Similarly, there should be no limit on what people can say about Winston in terms of criticism, as long as no false allegations are made about him.

I think the difficulty is that there are two separate issues.
Winston has every right to say that he doesn't agree with homosexuality,(as long as he doesn't discriminate) and he has every right to question if adoption or surrogacy is in the child's best interest.
However, I am not sure that freedom of speech extends to implying that all gay men are rapists, or that same sex parents are actually child abusers!

"However, I am not sure that freedom of speech extends to implying that all gay men are rapists, or that same sex parents are actually child abusers!"

I have no wish to defend Winston but this is not what he said.

The "back to the wall" comment implies exactly that. Didn't he say he thought same sex adoption was child abuse?


Edit...
He confirms in this interview that he used the word "abuse" http://www.newfamilysocial.org.uk/re...tion-comments/

What I take issue with is this thread seems to be bunching everyone who has an issue with the way BB handled things as 'Winston apologists', implying that anyone who critisises what happened is in line with his way of thinking. That's simply not the case, is a lazy argument to make, and just not on really. It doesn't have to be so black and white, you can hate homophobia and also hate the way BB does things at the same time.

Well said. I think this is a concept many find difficult to understand though!

Agreed as evident by one or two replies that don't really seem to understand what this thread is about.

Thank you OP for this post. I was trying to explain to a lot of people that his free speech was not violated. It's stunning to see how many people don't actually know what freedom of speech means.