Options
Have all the people who said Gina's back story is fake, been vindicated yet?
SnowStorm86
Posts: 17,273 Forum Member
✭✭
Enough time has now surely passed for the many on DS, who claimed that she lives in a high rise council block in East London and drives a clapped out Peugeot, to gather the evidence which was insisted to be forthcoming upon her eviction from Big Brother.
It would be great to know one way or another, otherwise in future series, we could call anyone we don't like "fake" time after time.
It would be great to know one way or another, otherwise in future series, we could call anyone we don't like "fake" time after time.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Only in the sense of unsatisfied curiosity.
What would be the point of her continuing the act now that she's out of Big Brother? As I recall, her detractors insisted the original Daily Mail article about her being the most spoilt kid in Britain was the beginning of her Big Brother campaign.
Well Big Brother is over now, so why continue the act? Seems like a lot of effort with no obvious benefit for herself.
I think it does. As I said in my OP, if she turns out to be the real deal then It should be made clear, because otherwise in future series we will be calling bullshit on anyone's back story that we don't like.
I think only Gina is really in a position to prove or disprove her story, and she may not be very motivated.
I know her Nicky Graham impressions in the DR were fake because she dropped them after a while. I'm still not sure whether the boorish boasting about her lavish lifestyle was fake or just crass.
Eight posts before the race card was played...
Well if Gina's story wasn't true she would have been lying to her fellow HMs for several weeks, I think the very least she would do is to avoid them like the plague. I'm sure all the HMs are now aware of the claims made about the veracity of Gina's back story and yet she still seems to be socialising with them.
I'm thinking a few of them must have asked her about the rumours, must have talked to each other and still nothing has come out. She got on well with most of the HMs so they may well be keeping quiet now the game's up but surely those who didn't like her would get to find out too?
I suppose when they go out Gina could be sneaking back to Walthamstow on the night bus at the end of the night but wouldn't any of them notice? Wouldn't they notice if she was skint? I remember she did invite Dexter round for brunch at the Mayfair, did she book in there just to carry on the ruse even though she didn't know Dexter was in town until that morning?
I have never suggested that she is skint. I am suggesting that she does not have an allowance of £10000 a month and a five bedroom house with pool in zone 1. If she does, I apologise for doubting her. If she doesn't, I am genuinely curious about what the Mail knew when they ran the original story.
Well I assume if she doesn't get an allowance then she must work because it would be very hard to even pretend you were rich in London without some income, and yet it seems she doesn't have employment.
Sammmymack has got a point.
From what I read on the forum across BB14, it was more to do with the questionable photos and quotes in the Daily Mail article that were leading some posters to think she wasn't genuinely rich than anything to do with her skin colour.
Gina has mentioned expensive hotels, shopping, shoes, massive amounts of money she gets from her mother/that she spends, etc etc since 2011 on twitter. (When her account was private) So I seriously doubt she was making it all up, those tweets are proof enough for me.
I don't think so. Housemates who appear to be telling a story that doesn't add up have been investigated to the nth degree in the past. Liam on BBCH was one. It was quite awe inspiring - almost chilling- the methodical way in which people on here deconstructed all his business claims and proved them wrong. And look at the amount of forensic analysis that goes into investigating everything that Josie Gibson does! David Cameron is subject to less rigorous scrutiny than she is.
It's become kind of a 'job' now. You make a profile for yourself based on some angle, and other work can be generated from it.
Imogen Thomas has largely been making a living off these photo stories she sells to the Daily Mail, such as lifting up her own skirt to pretend that she'd been caught in the embarrassing situation of being papped when caught out by the wind.
I wouldn't consider tweets proof of anything. Weren't the 'designer' shoes identified as high street? Didn't she give two different prices for a London home? Wasn't the first price laughably small for what she described? Weren't those the worst, cheapest looking extensions in the history of extensions?
Surely the point was that, if she had been white, people wouldn't have presumed that she was 'telling a story' or that it 'doesn't add up'?
I really don't think her skin colour has anything to do with it. Most of us are well aware that wealth is not the sole preserve of white people.
She hasn't been in the press as much as I thought she would be post BB. Personally I still think the wealth story was exaggerated for column inches but as she is off my radar now I don't really care what she does.
Not me I assure you. I doubted her because of what seemed to be false claims. I do think that by now she probably would have been exposed. Another thing, among so much that didn't ring true, was her claiming to live in the King's Cross area.Not an area of London the very wealthy inhabit.
Sadly I think there is some truth in this.