Hell's Kitchen

Oh dear more PC...

What Brian didn’t see was that Jim was actually winding him up, and if he hadn’t kept taking the bait and perhaps played something back, like moving to kiss him, Jim wouldn’t have knows where to have looked.

Brian has just given more opportunity now for more stereotyping and negative attitudes to happen, gay people do this often and they need to wake up a bit.

Jim should not been thrown out, its how JD is and how he always has been, its entertainment for goodness sake, I guess they could of chucked out the poof out , sorry I mean Brian, I would of, but wait a minute, that would have been homophobic if that had been done, and we cant have that can we....

Yes we can!! Stop being so bloody PC and get rid of the pathetic little SL. That stupid little excuse for a 'man' needs a slap.
Why does he have to go over the top with how he acts?
So hes gay, big deal, I am, so are many people. Bawling his eyes out on national TV making a bigger **** of himself then he already is, mincing round the bloody kitchen.

I hope he gets voted out soon then I won’t have to keep swearing at the little p****.

Respect to JD!!


PS, The old phrase, if you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen, come to mind... hint hint Brian!!

...waits for the brown stuff to hit the fan...

I think you may of had more sympathy if you had'nt revailed you were homophobic!
EDIT: What an idiot i am I should have read your whole post before replying, I'm sorry.
In fairness you did edit it after to include the fact that you are gay.

Where did I say I was homophibic? I said I was gay...
Everyone knows that you cannot be gay and be homophobic.

Well technically, you can be and you did edit your post to include that fact after I read it.

Nah im not homophobic, just cant stand all this PC nonsense, he needs to grow up and stop bawling his eyes out when someone winds him up.

Well I 100% agree with you on that.

Your post disproves the rule.

If you have a self-loathing complex that's your bag; it's unfair of you to impose that on someone well adjusted with himself enough to be emotional when provoked.

Are men who may be "theatrical/camp/effeminate" (take your pick) not entitled to be respected, or do they embarrass you too much?

No they not are entitled to be respected, when they go OTT, like he seems to do for attention. And yes they do embarrass me and make me some ashamed to be gay and have him, a member of the lifestyle I choose to live.

Ahh - well there you go. Wasn't the original BB house in that area - or am I thinking about Old Ford Lock in E3 where The Big Breakfast house was/is?

Everyone has that right to be respected, Mattie. It might not seem natural to you but some men are effeminate. Its the way they are wired. Its no different to being a manly gay man, a manly straight man or an effeminate straight man.

All exist. All are entitled to the same basic human rights as everyone else.

You shouldn't concern yourself with how others behave, I mean, you don't represent all gay men do you? Why should he?

We're individuals the last time I checked.

There is a definate difference in a fictional drama, written and acted to provoke thought, and essentially not representative of the views of the broadcaster or writer, to the careless muterings of an old school comedian who finds himself caged in a world of PCness.

I am gay.

I've watched Jim Davidson all my life on TV, from Elephant & Castle right through to Gen Game, and seen him on stage. He is a funny bloke.

I would rather sit and have a drink in a pub with Jim than spend time with Brian with whom I find I have nothing in common other than my sexual preference.

It has been mentioned on here - but it has been Brian's response to Jim's comments which have caused the HOO HA!! The original 'shirtlifter' comment was throw away. Brian reacted immaturely, Jim then didn't know how to react to Brian's childish reaction, and so the situation became the unnecessary argument that it did.

It's a shame cos Jim ihas earned his reputation as a leading entertainer.

Brian is famous for . . . . . .?