by guest
9th November, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Once a year I have to out myself as a fan of Strictly Come Dancing and now is that time. I like dance, that is all. OK, maybe I should write a little bit more than that.
There is the distinct possibility that one of the most horrid people ever to enter British politics is starting to be thought of favourably. Ann Widdecombe is not, and never will be, a national treasure. It’s not just because she is a Tory, it is because she is a particularly unpleasant person all round.
I could just leave it at that but some younger people may just think that she is a humourless joyspoiler but wait my little naive friends, she is so much less.
She is anti-abortion and seems to have problems with embryonic stem cell research whilst not fully understanding the science behind it. Scientists didn’t want to create a human/animal hybrid Ann.
She is anti-Sex Education.
She supports Homophobia as long it’s by religious people (It’s free speech you know.)
She supports tougher drug laws.
She seems to think that the Church of England apologising for the Crusades and slavery “makes them look silly”.
She believes in censorship.
She is one of the idiot MP’s who wanted Terrorism suspects detained for 42 days despite no evidence that it would help investigations in any way.
She is against political parties trying to help get more women into Parliament.
She seems to agree with PETA on some things (they even gave her an award).
She insisted that Tories “throughout the Thatcher period” had always cared about the poor.
She writes for the Daily Express.
She was opposed to the repeal of Section 28.
She is a climate change denier.
She left the Church of England because they started ordinating woman.
In 1996 she defended the Governments policy of shackling pregnant women with handcuffs and chains when in hospital, even when giving birth. *
And on top of all of this, SHE REALLY REALLY CAN’T DANCE! Although on the plus side she is against fox hunting.
*edited by earwicga (Hansard shows Widdecombe defending shackles for pregnant women but not for women at the point of expulsion.)
Filed in:
Current affairs
Read through that list – nothing in that makes her a ‘nasty’ person. But it is interesting – I always had a theory that the Left cannot bear any difference of opinion. When they encounter that, the default reaction is name-calling, smearing of the worst kind. Imagine a centre-right supporter saying the same things about Harriet “ginger rodent” Harman !!!!
Seriously vi_sa? Try giving birth whilst shackled and come back and say whether you thought that was nasty or not. I could replicate this comment for all the other points in Martyn’s post. It is not about ‘differences of opinion’. It’s about right and wrong.
Well, you want to count your self lucky that she didn’t agree with PETA’s “I’d rather go Naked” campaign
Sir Oswald, there is no need to resort to criticisms on appearance. especially when there is such a wealth of other things to choose from.
(clever comment though)
That’s a pretty mixed bag of opinions that Widdecombe has. She’s a Tory and a catholic, so that explains some of them. What’s wrong in being against abortion if you believe that you are killing a child? Family members of mine are catholics and against abortion.
I don’t agree with them, but that doesn’t make them bad people.
On the Police Stopping and Searching only Asian and Black people, it seems from that link, that top muslim cop Ali Dizaei agreed with her at the time, and said that it was wrong for the police to feel that they had to even up the numbers by stopping random white people …. for the only reason of making the numbers look better.
But she’s wrong about fox hunting. It’s a reasonably harmless passtime enjoyed by thousands.
No mate, it is you who is the nasty one. At least half of the things you have written are just plain wrong. Especially the last one. Indeed, she has legal warnings out on all national newspapers who repeat the fallacy that she approved of shackling female prisoners during childbirth. She most emphatically did not and if you had done any research whatsoever you wouldn’t have written anything so crass. She has successfully sued on this before, so if I were you I would amend the wording on that one or reap the consequences.
Sure Iain. Funny how The Independent website still has this article on it despite the ‘legal warning’: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chaining-women-backed-1323238.html
Perhaps you could look up the words ‘defend’ and ‘approve’ and try a little harder with your next comment?
She wasn’t the only one to have voted against repealing Section 28. David Cameron did too.
To be fair she didn’t say they were handcuffed/shackled during actual labour; that said Iain Dale (assuming that is him) is hardly helping her ’cause’ by suggesting she’ll take legal action against those who suggest otherwise.
Hansard re Widdecombe and shackling http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1996/jan/09/holloway-prison
Apparently the woman in question on the Ch4 video had a very very short labour as she was shackled an hour before giving birth. Unusual if true.
People in glass houses! What about your character assassination of Gita Sahgal in defence of someone whose views were not so very far from the nastiness of La Widdecombe?
That certainly wasn’t nice.
I do miss Gwyneth Dunwoody:
‘Despite the fact that the Minister seems to show a frightening inability to understand the difference between a woman who is four and a half months pregnant and a 22 woman who is in labour, would she like to tell us how many cases there are of women prisoners being taken to an outside hospital without being in labour? Starting contractions does not inhibit the ability to walk around. If the Minister cannot get accurate information, would she like to astonish the House by saying that she is sorry?’
And Diane Abbott was spot on:
‘Does the Minister accept that any woman who has had a child will find her statements utterly repellent? They will find the grins on the faces of Tory Members of Parliament even more repellent.
Will the Minister allow me to spell it out? Whatever forms she may have seen, once a woman’s waters have broken, her cervix is dilated and she is sitting or standing awaiting the onset of labour contractions, she will not be running anywhere. There is a world of difference between being four and a half, six or even seven months pregnant and the final hours of pregnancy. Does the Minister accept that it is degrading and inappropriate for women to be shackled to men in the final hours of pregnancy? ‘
Surely we can pick apart some of those opinions that Ann Widdecombe has.
This is a website that has religious people on it, who might not think that homosexuality should be seen as normal for example. Or might agree that trying to force female imams (or whatever) is not what the religion teaches. Why get on her case so much for being backward and reactionary? My grandparents were probably much the same.
Well, one thing you can say in Widdecombe’s favour is that she obviously doesn’t take herself too seriously.
Unlike some other people.
These makes her unpleasant or nasty, do they?
Extraordinary.
This is a website that has religious people on it, who might not think that homosexuality should be seen as normal for example.
Fuck ‘em.
No offense.
I’m not sure Don. I think that people should have the right to be a bit crazy if they want to be.
Most of the world is religious and quite conservative on a lot of issues. Things like homosexuality being seen as much more mainstream has only happened quite recently, and only in a certain few places.
I read this article a few days ago about the huge rally in Washington organised by political comedian Jon Stewart – against the tea party. I think it makes a couple of good points.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9842/
“There is the distinct possibility that one of the most horrid people ever to enter British politics is starting to be thought of favourably”.
Ann Widdecombe has been thought of favourably for a long time by ordinary non-lefties, and even some lefties, because she says what she thinks, which nowadays is a very rare attribute. How many public figures have the guts to voice their opinions without first calculating who might be upset, insulted, offended by them, and then either keeping their mouths shut, or self-censoring to such a degree that what eventually comes out of their mouths is worthless? I applaud honesty, regardless of the substance of what is said.
I applaud honesty, regardless of the substance of what is said.
Widdecombe’s brand of honesty has given her a lucrative media profile.
These kind of knaves I know, which in this plainness
Harbour more craft and more corrupter ends
Than twenty silly ducking observants
That stretch their duties nicely.
Widdecombe’s views really aren’t much different from a lot of other Tories’, but she attracts special oppobrium because solely because she’s avowedly Christian and luminously unshaggable. Nothing is more likely to earn the contempt of the wadical riot grrl about town who quite fancies herself.
wadical riot grrl about town
That’s a key demographic round my way.
Widdecombe’s brand of honesty has given her a lucrative media profile.
Another point in her favour.
If we had someone like Anne Widdecombe as PM, this country wouldn’t be in the state it’s in.
Strange how you never mentioned her opposition to fox-hunting (something you’ll no doubt agree with her on, being a do-gooder). That’s the only thing she’s wrong about, funnily enough.
Thanks for your comment Larry. I’m sorry you feel like you do but I think it is related to your inability to read. Go check the OP again with regard to fox-hunting and then toddle along to sites that appreciate your complete lack of morals.
Okay, I’ll give you that one.
It doesn’t get away from the fact that you are calling people who deny “climate change” deniers, a word that has been used by religious zealots throughout the ages for people who won’t subscribe to their worshipping of sky fairies. How is the church of global warming any different? It hasn’t been proven either.
Putting the MENTAL in environMENTAL.
You lot have hijacked true environmentalism so you can further your perverse agenda for control.
Doris Karloff, as once she was known…