I don't think so. Huggy -- American, unfamiliar with the British public and their periodic indulgence in vilification -- may have thought the public was picking Natalie because they liked her. He said something that made me think that was what he thought. But someone else then corrected him.


But the very same behaviour can be called "bullying" or not, depending on whether it's thought to be wrong or not (among other things).

If the same behaviour had been directed towards Natalie instead of Sophie, would people object in the same way? Would they even consider it "bullying". I have seen nothing that makes me think they would.


In reply, I give you Victor and Victor vs Shell. The forum divided on whether Vic was a bully and on whether his treatment of Shell was justified, largely on the same lines as their earlier like/dislike of those two housemates.

I think what Veri said is nonsense if he/she is referring to us.

But I do believe in Veri's sentiment.
Some people would celebrate Janet picking on someone they dislike.
We saw it happen in BB5 and several reality shows.

Actually you kind of supported Veri's comment in saying that Janet would go for easy targets. Because that would rely on the public's hatred of pre-conceived hate figures.

But I do agree with you that the comment is nonsense if Veri is just just referring to us.

on this evenings news there was an article about two cancer victims. Tey were only 12-14 but they were experiensing severe school bullying. The reporter exprexxed concern over this trend. Has janet been teaching them?

I may be in a minority agreeing with your basic sentiment.
You know that i do, because you know I said the same thing in another thread.

But to narrow it down and say it's just the people in this thread who would celebrate Janet picking on someone we don't like is baseless.
People have told you that they liked Janet initially and have gone off her a bit. You don't know which forum members would enjoy Janet picking on someone they also didn't like, and which ones wouldn't.

People are different. We aren't all the same.

oh puhleeeeze!!

Yes it does.

Nancy just said why a couple of minutes ago.

She said ....."You have to try and stay on the good side of Janet"

I'm still taken aback by the amoint of "mind-reading" that goes on here.

Of course, it couldn't possibly be that they liked Natalie or genuinely felt for her.

It just has to be some cynical calculation.

And it couldn't possibly be that Sophie is irritating, or somehow rubs some people the wrong way; it just has to be another cynical calculation.

All the while, people point out (rightly) how poor the live show is, how little we see.

(Sophie doesn't like crossing roads, I note.) I also note that she and Janet seem to be getting along very well together. But of course, that has to be another cynical calculation on Janet's part.

When I first saw the list of contestants I picked JSP as the person I would want to win, she being a bolshy woman.

I think I am therefore well placed to refute the accusation that if she was picking on someone I disliked I would be applauding her. I have no problem with her lets get on and do it attitude (such as collecting the wood) or, in the clip just seen, being irritated with Sophie being in bed) but she does cross the line into bullying and for that reason I now want to see her leave.

Is there some case when you've criticised her when her target was someone you disliked? Because that's what would refute my accusation.

Or would you instead put it in the "justified" column, along with being irritated with Sophie being in bed?

My accusation is not that people would agree with something they called and saw as bullying; it's that they'd applaud the behaviour and find some way to argue that it wasn't bullying at all but instead perfectly justified and welcome criticism.

Yes, and I appreciate your mentioning it.


I didn't mean specifically the people in this thread. I meant it as a general comment about the forum. The rest of what you say is right and worth pointing out.

Nonetheless, many people were vilifying Natalie, and finding ingenious ways to put some of the worst possible interpretations on what she did, seemingly unable to see any of her positive qualities. Would they really object if someone in the camp went after her?

I'd like to think they would; but I haven't seen much sign of it.

I don't know why?

You are the one making sweeping statements about people on the forum ,and people contributing on this thread.
.

I already told you i didnt like Sophie before she entered the jungle . It was only the way she has "handled" the situation that gained my respect.


I find this one offensive

Whether you choose to believe it or not believe it or not i would have been more outraged if she treated Natalie the same way she treated Sophie , as i dont believe Natalie could have handled it.

I have never applauded bullies ever in no way ,shape or form.


Nor have i villified Natalie
Yes i used her as an example ,
to show that "sophie couldnt do right for doing wrong in Janet's eyes .

Yet Janet didnt make any comment whatsoever to Natalie ,when lets face it they were all starving.
I also pointed out that the laziness she kept accusing Sophie of , had a worse offender in Sheila.
It didnt mean i wanted them bullied for it!

Feel free to check all my posts over the 2 yrs and you'll see the only thing that really gets my back up is a bully.
It makes very uncomfortable viewing for me.

You'll find i have never once posted in a thread that begins " I hate****.
Just a personal stance i take , don't like to shout about it ,but it s the first time i have felt the need to .

As for the mind reading accusation i try to use IMO or "as i see it".
But yes guilty as charged , no matter who the bully or victim in my eyes i get so angry i tend to forget these phrases.

My grammar and setting out of replies goes out the window too

wow WTF happend there ???

I was talking about "mind-reading" directed at the celebs.

If I misinterpret someone in the forum, they can correct me.

I am perfectly willing to believe someone who says it so clearly and plainly, without words that might turn weasel.


You can't be sure of that, especially given the long gaps in the live feed. (And in any case, it could have been said when they were someplace that wasn't being shown.)

There are skills apparent here .........unfortunately they aren't mine.

Fair Comment, this is a possibility

But can't help thinking it would have been shown on the highlights show, had it happened.

I think Janet's great and no-one who has come out of the jungle has said anything bad about her. A lot of what she says is definitely tongue in cheek to get a reaction from those around and she succeeds! Paul especially is enjoying the banter but those of a more touchy or paranoid nature read more into it than was intended. IMHO anyway
Last edited by greenteabag : 04-12-2004 at 13:47

I have to agree her toungue does seem to have lost its acerbic edge over the last 48hrs.
At the time of my original rant i truly feel her "banter" had very cruel undertones.
Paul definitely is enjoying it more now he seems to realise some of the public think he's an ok guy.
As each day passes he gains the confidence to give as good as he gets . So much so that yes , i have actually watched him instigate some of the banter between them.

I stilll believe in the earlier days he felt very uncomfortable, when she kept trying to get him to talk about the one thing he didnt want to talk about.
They both knew it was his "achillies heel"

It wud be bloody dull without her!

From the master/mistress of the sweeping generalisation. Marvellous. Made me laugh like a drain, this one!

I don't get out much.