Big Brother's Little Court

1121122124126127187

Comments

  • FrillynixFrillynix Posts: 6,497
    Forum Member
    So.....any more news from Mucker Mansions then?

    Is Josie happier or sadder than shes ever been

    Is she with doughboy or lukeyboy playing duelling banjos.......is her self esteem really high or does she still have doubts........are those lips going to keep expanding till they explode, why did she pretend to get papped with doughboy the same day as posing for that shite article......why do the flying monkeys not give a fiddlers fark whether their head bombadier spouts utter contradictory crud every time she breathes......what size of plastic fazongers has lukeyboy ordered from the plastic surgeon to stick on her chest and will this give her more self esteem or even more doubts.......and the thirty thousand dollar question on everyone's lips is that as she's been proven to lie on each exhale, how could one believe her when she said she "smoothed John RIGHT over" (ugh brain bleach)
  • patsylimerickpatsylimerick Posts: 22,124
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm not really sure what to think of john's tweet about giving up sex from August 2010 but I think it might be slightly unrealistic. There are several reasons why I think this. Firstly, in the interview (in September) with Emma Willis Josie said 'well hes just like my mate aint he?' to which John replied 'she said before your like my mate, that I have sex with' so clearly they were having a pyshical relationship in the inital stages and Josies reaction was too natural for it too be fake imo. Secondly, during the Samuel Dean interview (in September or October I believe, someone correct me if Im wrong) John and Josie were talking about the JLS condoms and Josie replied 'yeah we had them', Samuel Dean then went on to say, 'which one did john james c*m in?', to which he replied confidently 'ashton'. Even in Portgual in their first show after the bull fight Josie said 'our first date was to a bullfight... didnt like it..lets just go back to the hotel room', to which they both looked at each in a fairly suggestive and excited way. I think you all know where I'm going with this. I really don't think John would go along with a completely fake relationship. His morlas are too strong . I think their relationship was real (and pyshical), up until december-ish and then John felt like he had to come back to the UK after christmas to finish contracts etc/ film the tv show, but realised that it wasnt what he wanted and he walked out of the situation.

    They weren't clearly anything. Both their stories have been more full of holes than sponge bob. And what makes you think that John's morals are strong? How can you say that about someone who bullied women for purporting to be the kind of media sap that he himself turned into the minute he left the house? How can you say that about someone who stood at the flower show receiving gifts and awe for a relationship that he was either never in, or no longer in? Moral my ass.
  • FrillynixFrillynix Posts: 6,497
    Forum Member
    They weren't clearly anything. Both their stories have been more full of holes than sponge bob. And what makes you think that John's morals are strong? How can you say that about someone who bullied women for purporting to be the kind of media sap that he himself turned into the minute he left the house? How can you say that about someone who stood at the flower show receiving gifts and awe for a relationship that he was either never in, or no longer in? Moral my ass.

    See I keep going back to the flower show, and I noticed nyannie saying yesterday they didnt seem much of a couple and would love some more details (come on nyannie:D)

    This was a cruddy thing to do really - to stand there taking their money and presents and accolades

    also - Lubex (luke and bex) managed to carry off plenty of joint interviews pretending to be together before they finally came clean and admitted they were fakeasfark

    Its not rocket science and why would a couple mad for each other move random folk into their little lovenest and why book long holidays away from each other and why would they travel to and from appearances separately

    Its almost as if they were together only when they really had to be for appearances innit
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 32
    Forum Member
    They weren't clearly anything. Both their stories have been more full of holes than sponge bob. And what makes you think that John's morals are strong? How can you say that about someone who bullied women for purporting to be the kind of media sap that he himself turned into the minute he left the house? How can you say that about someone who stood at the flower show receiving gifts and awe for a relationship that he was either never in, or no longer in? Moral my ass.

    This is a court thread and I therefore tried to give some evidence on why I think Johns tweet wasn't exactly true. I'm not saying I'm 100% correct but there is evidence that their relationship was pysical post-August 2010 . You're correct, it is hard to judge someones character when I've not personally met him but from what I seen in the house and from outside the house, I personally believe he has strong morals (especially loyalty), and believe he wouldn't do anything he didn't believe in. If you believe they 'acted' and 'faked' their romance you only have to watch the start of the 'Dont Stop Believing' video where him and Corin were on the bench to realise he's not good at acting. And maybe their relationship did end at Christmas, but thats not the point Im arguing, I'm simply giving my opinion on his tweet. :)
  • FrillynixFrillynix Posts: 6,497
    Forum Member
    This is a court thread and I therefore tried to give some evidence on why I think Johns tweet wasn't exactly true. I'm not saying I'm 100% correct but there is evidence that their relationship was pysical post-August 2010 . You're correct, it is hard to judge someones character when I've not personally met him but from what I seen in the house and from outside the house, I personally believe he has strong morals (especially loyalty), and believe he wouldn't do anything he didn't believe in. If you believe they 'acted' and 'faked' their romance you only have to watch the start of the 'Dont Stop Believing' video where him and Corin were on the bench to realise he's not good at acting. And maybe their relationship did end at Christmas, but thats not the point Im arguing, I'm simply giving my opinion on his tweet. :)

    I have got to respectfully disagree.

    John made a big thing of professing to have morals and hating liars but this was not borne out by his actions which speak much louder.

    He had Racheal crying simply because she was truthful that she would do photoshoots if offered. ; which was a tad more truthful than him as the first thing he did on leaving the house was to get some abs drawn on and hung from ropes half naked looking for all the world like he needed a good dose of laxative.

    When racheal came back in he insulted her, crowed to the housemates about it and then cried his lamps out when told nathan was her boyfriend. Before that he was revelling in it

    Not moral at all. For wot its worth he appears to have grown up but certainly at that time he was somewhat of a hypocrite.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 32
    Forum Member
    Frillynix wrote: »
    I have got to respectfully disagree.

    John made a big thing of professing to have morals and hating liars but this was not borne out by his actions which speak much louder.

    He had Racheal crying simply because she was truthful that she would do photoshoots if offered. ; which was a tad more truthful than him as the first thing he did on leaving the house was to get some abs drawn on and hung from ropes half naked looking for all the world like he needed a good dose of laxative.

    When racheal came back in he insulted her, crowed to the housemates about it and then cried his lamps out when told nathan was her boyfriend. Before that he was revelling in it

    Not moral at all. For wot its worth he appears to have grown up but certainly at that time he was somewhat of a hypocrite.

    I agree Jonhs treatment of Rachael wasn't nice at all, but just because somebody makes mistakes doesn't mean they don't have any morals. Everyone has days where they perhaps snap at someone or argue with someone, it doesnt make them a bad person, just a normal one..
  • fjiffjif Posts: 1,613
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Frillynix wrote: »
    So.....any more news from Mucker Mansions then?

    Is Josie happier or sadder than shes ever been

    Is she with doughboy or lukeyboy playing duelling banjos.......is her self esteem really high or does she still have doubts........are those lips going to keep expanding till they explode, why did she pretend to get papped with doughboy the same day as posing for that shite article......why do the flying monkeys not give a fiddlers fark whether their head bombadier spouts utter contradictory crud every time she breathes......what size of plastic fazongers has lukeyboy ordered from the plastic surgeon to stick on her chest and will this give her more self esteem or even more doubts.......and the thirty thousand dollar question on everyone's lips is that as she's been proven to lie on each exhale, how could one believe her when she said she "smoothed John RIGHT over" (ugh brain bleach)

    I read that to this theme tune. :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rUxKq7w6ec
  • PilotofthestormPilotofthestorm Posts: 3,279
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They weren't clearly anything. Both their stories have been more full of holes than sponge bob. And what makes you think that John's morals are strong? How can you say that about someone who bullied women for purporting to be the kind of media sap that he himself turned into the minute he left the house? How can you say that about someone who stood at the flower show receiving gifts and awe for a relationship that he was either never in, or no longer in? Moral my ass.

    Ahhhhh Patsy you always put it so much better than I :D

    I also don't believe he went back to OZ for moralistic reasons either....no he wanted the fame and adulation from his fans as badly as anyone who's been on BB....just not the fans he ended up with and I mean no disrespect to those who like him but I think he was after a slice of the One Direction market but he ended up with the Alan Titmarsh/Loose Women brigade and being the upstanding gent that he is he ran for the hills. Of course he has previous form in this regard having tried to scarper from the BB house on several occasions :cool:
  • HappyTreeHappyTree Posts: 4,936
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If you believe they 'acted' and 'faked' their romance you only have to watch the start of the 'Dont Stop Believing' video where him and Corin were on the bench to realise he's not good at acting.

    Good point, but I'd agree with the reason whilst coming to the opposite conclusion. They are bad actors, that is why it was never very convincing.

    In my view, Taser Jo has been lying about anything and everything since the first nanosecond she appeared on the screen. And I think JJ was in severe trauma from his father's death and thus was in an extremely emotionally dependent state of mind. Ripe pickings for vultures like Josie with a malevolent, manipulative streak and no hint of shame or boundaries. She homed in on him for two reasons: she could smell money and she could smell blood.
  • FrillynixFrillynix Posts: 6,497
    Forum Member
    I agree Jonhs treatment of Rachael wasn't nice at all, but just because somebody makes mistakes doesn't mean they don't have any morals. Everyone has days where they perhaps snap at someone or argue with someone, it doesnt make them a bad person, just a normal one..

    I dont think john is a bad person, I'm pointing out that he had no problems immediately doing something he was very nasty to someone else about - it wasnt just snapping in temper or making a mistake because it was weeks later when racheal came back in and a person with morals wouldnt have been so damn nasty to her - or boasted about it . Jj2 looked shocked.

    I think he thought wheres the harm but once out of the house he went WTF and it was too late

    I'm saying its not a criminal offence to fake a relationship but when it was obvious how much emotion and how.........errr......full on it all was he started getting stressed about it well that and sharing your space with a taser weilding sociopath.......

    My point is that to embark on it at the beginning he was just like a lot of folk.....not someone of particularly low morals......lbut lets not kid ourselves that his morals were "too high" because his actions tell a different story
  • ImperialImperial Posts: 344
    Forum Member
    I agree Jonhs treatment of Rachael wasn't nice at all, but just because somebody makes mistakes doesn't mean they don't have any morals. Everyone has days where they perhaps snap at someone or argue with someone, it doesnt make them a bad person, just a normal one..

    I don't think 'normal' would be a word I would use to describe his non-stop rants at some of the women - never at the men! - he was as disingenuous as the rest of them looking for his 15 minutes but couldn't handle it imo. A weak man who bullied women. Not a good morally upstanding person at all but because he looked cute (to a lot of older women) he was deemed a good guy.
    I found/find the whole JJ adoration thing baffling...a strange phenomenon.
  • FrillynixFrillynix Posts: 6,497
    Forum Member
    fjif wrote: »
    I read that to this theme tune. :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rUxKq7w6ec

    Hahha thats exactly what I was thinking of!

    Except it makes more sense than josie:D
  • ImperialImperial Posts: 344
    Forum Member
    They weren't clearly anything. Both their stories have been more full of holes than sponge bob. And what makes you think that John's morals are strong? How can you say that about someone who bullied women for purporting to be the kind of media sap that he himself turned into the minute he left the house? How can you say that about someone who stood at the flower show receiving gifts and awe for a relationship that he was either never in, or no longer in? Moral my ass.

    Great post! :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 32
    Forum Member
    HappyTree wrote: »
    Good point, but I'd agree with the reason whilst coming to the opposite conclusion. They are bad actors, that is why it was never very convincing.

    In my view, Taser Jo has been lying about anything and everything since the first nanosecond she appeared on the screen. And I think JJ was in severe trauma from his father's death and thus was in an extremely emotionally dependent state of mind. Ripe pickings for vultures like Josie with a malevolent, manipulative streak and no hint of shame or boundaries. She homed in on him for two reasons: she could smell money and she could smell blood.

    you believe they are bad actors, but if they were bad actors, they wouldnt be able to act naturally and loving and intimate in my examples in my initial post with regards to them having sex. but they did act naturally in these cases, and if they were bad actors they wouldnt be able to act in this way. And this is why I believe it wasn't 'fake'
  • aggsaggs Posts: 29,458
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Frillynix wrote: »
    I dont think john is a bad person, I'm pointing out that he had no problems immediately doing something he was very nasty to someone else about - it wasnt just snapping in temper or making a mistake because it was weeks later when racheal came back in and a person with morals wouldnt have been so damn nasty to her - or boasted about it . Jj2 looked shocked.

    I think he thought wheres the harm but once out of the house he went WTF and it was too late

    I'm saying its not a criminal offence to fake a relationship but when it was obvious how much emotion and how.........errr......full on it all was he started getting stressed about it well that and sharing your space with a taser weilding sociopath.......

    My point is that to embark on it at the beginning he was just like a lot of folk.....not someone of particularly low morals......lbut lets not kid ourselves that his morals were "too high" because his actions tell a different story

    I thought the second Racheal incident was interesting.

    On the face of it, at that time it was fairly apparent the way the wind was blowing - everyone coming in the house was singing from the 'romance' hymn sheet and bigging up the pair of them. He could strop and refuse to do tasks and leg it through the fire escape and still get an away day to the races with his best mate.

    I think he'd been humoured so much he thought he could do and say what he liked without come back - and then he was brought back to earth with a Nathan shaped bump. I'm not sure he ever really recovered from that.
  • FrillynixFrillynix Posts: 6,497
    Forum Member
    you believe they are bad actors, but if they were bad actors, they wouldnt be able to act naturally and loving and intimate in my examples in my initial post with regards to them having sex. but they did act naturally in these cases, and if they were bad actors they wouldnt be able to act in this way. And this is why I believe it wasn't 'fake'

    But thats so subjective because where you see them acting nsturally loving and flirty I can say ive seen nothing of the sort.

    I could say ive seen two mates and him ruffling and dunting her like a golden retriever but ive never seen romance or lust. A lot of people thought luke and bex were real also.

    Thats fine - you are just as entitled to your perceptions as I am:D
  • MargMckMargMck Posts: 24,115
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mcworster wrote: »
    I think John is on a wind up but if he does want to confess that it was fake, he should just man up and get on with it.

    He should indeed. I used to listen to what a "moral person" he supposedly was, but ... meh! Now I think he would only do that as a retaliation against a specific allegation (eg directly accused of being gay), It is the ultimate nuke weapon after all.
    I have to admit to being a little surprised that there are some who still believe there was a physical aspect to their relationship. Now we have narrowed down the window of opportunity to the week after Josie left UBB. I'm going to narrow it further for you....

    Well there was that rubbish about them keeping a rugby team awake in a hotel - a definite scam story, I feel.
    Well said. I agree and think it's what fascinates me most about the entire thing. The obvious answer is that he wanted to be famous and his painted-on abs carry-on would support this theory. He had tried out for BB Australia more than once, as I recall. What a dubious way to chase fame, though.
    I'd imagine Josie can be quite persuasive, but it's an awful pity there isn't a log of those mics off conversations anywhere.

    Yes, let's never forget he was a determined famewhore. His action before and immediately after BB show that. Desperation, something he would never admit to, led to the farcical JJJ rubbish, in my opinion.

    Ahhhhh Patsy you always put it so much better than I :D... I think he was after a slice of the One Direction market but he ended up with the Alan Titmarsh/Loose Women brigade and being the upstanding gent that he is he ran for the hills. Of course he has previous form in this regard having tried to scarper from the BB house on several occasions :cool:

    Totally agree, He fantasised about bring a bit of a younger Beckham, unfortunately most of the fans he picked up would be Golden Balls's nannas,
    HappyTree wrote: »
    Good point, but I'd agree with the reason whilst coming to the opposite conclusion. They are bad actors, that is why it was never very convincing.
    I came very late to There's Something About Josie and that's exactly what it looks like - very bad acting, sub TOWIE.
    Imperial wrote: »
    I don't think 'normal' would be a word I would use to describe his non-stop rants at some of the women - never at the men! - he was as disingenuous as the rest of them looking for his 15 minutes but couldn't handle it imo. A weak man who bullied women. Not a good morally upstanding person at all but because he looked cute (to a lot of older women) he was deemed a good guy.
    I found/find the whole JJ adoration thing baffling...a strange phenomenon.

    No he was definitely not normal, however many silly gels and women of a certain age thought he looked cute in a beanie hat. Of course, it's always possible that the fiasco he was part of has helped him to mature a bit, as a sort of learning curve, which would be a good thing because he needed it.
  • muggins14muggins14 Posts: 61,844
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Frillynix wrote: »
    So.....any more news from Mucker Mansions then?

    Is Josie happier or sadder than shes ever been

    Is she with doughboy or lukeyboy playing duelling banjos.......is her self esteem really high or does she still have doubts........are those lips going to keep expanding till they explode, why did she pretend to get papped with doughboy the same day as posing for that shite article......why do the flying monkeys not give a fiddlers fark whether their head bombadier spouts utter contradictory crud every time she breathes......what size of plastic fazongers has lukeyboy ordered from the plastic surgeon to stick on her chest and will this give her more self esteem or even more doubts.......and the thirty thousand dollar question on everyone's lips is that as she's been proven to lie on each exhale, how could one believe her when she said she "smoothed John RIGHT over" (ugh brain bleach)
    Yes.

    :p
  • muggins14muggins14 Posts: 61,844
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    fjif wrote: »
    I read that to this theme tune. :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rUxKq7w6ec
    How funny, I made a reference to Soap - a wonderful show - earlier today with regard to Josie :D Not sure if it was on here or not, but great minds and all of that :D
  • muggins14muggins14 Posts: 61,844
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    HappyTree wrote: »
    Good point, but I'd agree with the reason whilst coming to the opposite conclusion. They are bad actors, that is why it was never very convincing.

    In my view, Taser Jo has been lying about anything and everything since the first nanosecond she appeared on the screen. And I think JJ was in severe trauma from his father's death and thus was in an extremely emotionally dependent state of mind. Ripe pickings for vultures like Josie with a malevolent, manipulative streak and no hint of shame or boundaries. She homed in on him for two reasons: she could smell money and she could smell blood.
    Good post, and the more I read and learn about her now I am persuaded that this could be the case.
    Frillynix wrote: »
    I dont think john is a bad person, I'm pointing out that he had no problems immediately doing something he was very nasty to someone else about - it wasnt just snapping in temper or making a mistake because it was weeks later when racheal came back in and a person with morals wouldnt have been so damn nasty to her - or boasted about it . Jj2 looked shocked.

    I think he thought wheres the harm but once out of the house he went WTF and it was too late

    I'm saying its not a criminal offence to fake a relationship but when it was obvious how much emotion and how.........errr......full on it all was he started getting stressed about it well that and sharing your space with a taser weilding sociopath.......

    My point is that to embark on it at the beginning he was just like a lot of folk.....not someone of particularly low morals......lbut lets not kid ourselves that his morals were "too high" because his actions tell a different story
    I agree. Even, as I believe, the relationship was real for whatever period of time, 5 seconds, 5 months, whatever, I agree that there's no way his morals were 'too high', because obviously I do believe that for some time there was some fakery going on.

    Also, with regard to the situation when Rachael came back into the house, I've never - even on the AT all that time ago - been able to be anything but appalled by his behaviour, and my memory of JJ telling him that he pretty much deserved the reaction he got and it sinking into John's head that you just cannot talk that way to people - perhaps the first telling off he'd had since his father's passing - I remember thinking well done JJ and Corin.
  • muggins14muggins14 Posts: 61,844
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Has this been posted yet ... are you confused yet ... anybody got their stories straight yet? :D

    http://twitpic.com/cozzc5
  • HappyTreeHappyTree Posts: 4,936
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    you believe they are bad actors, but if they were bad actors, they wouldnt be able to act naturally and loving and intimate in my examples in my initial post
    Exactly! I didn't see them acting in this way at all. But hey, opinions and all that :cool:
  • HappyTreeHappyTree Posts: 4,936
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    muggins14 wrote: »
    Has this been posted yet ... are you confused yet ... anybody got their stories straight yet? :D

    http://twitpic.com/cozzc5

    Excellent stuff! The sub-zeleb soap opera writers are 'avin' a laugh.

    1. Happy and reunited
    2. Unhappy and reunited
    3. Happy and estranged
    4. Unhappy and estranged

    What will we go for? Ah sod it, we'll do them all at once, they don't notice anyway. :D
  • muggins14muggins14 Posts: 61,844
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    HappyTree wrote: »
    Excellent stuff! The sub-zeleb soap opera writers are 'avin' a laugh.

    1. Happy and reunited
    2. Unhappy and reunited
    3. Happy and estranged
    4. Unhappy and estranged

    What will we go for? Ah sod it, we'll do them all at once, they don't notice anyway. :D
    Reminds me of multiple-choice exams at school, where all the answers look correct :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 16,361
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Another entertaining evening's read. :D
Sign In or Register to comment.