Why cant people just accept the fact that Charlie won????

Its no big deal. Its just a game show. Its not life or death.

Charlie probably should have been only 4th or 5th judging by personality and entertainment value. But she started with a bigger fan base and ITV made Kiki part of the show.

And, as we've seen on Strictly... the best dancer doesn't always win.

Well she might have been given more airtime if she'd been given a special task to do.
You know, like Ashley was.

Some people really come across as a little arrogant to me. As if their opinion is fact, and they know the reasons why people voted the ways they did. [the people who can't accept that Charlie is the winner that is]

With all due respect YOU placed the bet. YOU took the chance that you might lose your money and YOU are struggling with that concept now.

Whether you liked the edits or portrayal of individuals is irrelevant. ITV is not responsible for the failure of your gambling. Pursuing it with them will be another failed gamble, albeit less expensive.

I think Ashley was given far more camera time after Helen left than any of them.

Would be interesting to see a breakdown of who did what in trials etc.,

Good luck with that

Since you placed a bet I assume you're over 18 and thus an adult - in age anyway. You chose to place a bet - you weren't told you had to, you did it by choice. So how are ITV to blame for you losing money when you placed a bet by choice? Grow up.

No disrespect, but only a fool bets on a reality show and then complains about fixing when they don't win.

It was also rather foolish to expect an American to win over a Brit, no matter how popular said American.

Also, Charlie has been a favourite from the beginning and I think her honest and forthright comments to Helen won her votes.

Lol. I think the OP should try betting on WWE wrestling next.

I wouldn't worry too much about the money doe_a_deer, others including myself lost a lot more on that deal.

You sound like a logical guy and are looking for concrete reasons why Ashley was pipped at the post, so I may be able to help.

Firstly looking at the "evidence", it is true that Charlie Brooks was always a favourite to win the show and certainly the early money was on her to win. Ashley on the other hand was a 50-1 shot at one stage and although Ashley ended up becoming favourite, the early money was all on Charlie. This does affect how people vote.

The polls going into the finals had Ashley beating Charlie 60-40 and the DS poll (80-20) was an outlier in polling terms and is a poll to avoid for betting purposes. As it happens none of the polls delivered the predicted result (see my final note).

The whole question surrounding Kiki and whether her appearance/phone call affected the result is conjecture but whilst it is certainly clear that Charlie's popularity increased after Kiki's appearance, the polls (after her appearance) still indicated an Ashley win. So you have to conclude that whilst bringing a child into the mix may have helped Charlie, it certainly (according to the polls) didn't appear to put her in a winning position.

So the only thing left is to examine the "nationality" issue. Every instance of a non Brit in a voting contest will demonstrate the same recurring theme; the Brit almost always wins and Americans in particular always appear to underperform. The primary reason for this is simply that people who "support" non Brits in polls etc are eother less likely to vote and imo do not vote as hard as those who support Brits (against the enemy...lol). For every 3 Ashley votes there were 6 or more votes for Charlie thus rendering the polls hugely inaccurate.

Punting wise it it never pays to oppose a Brit in a British contest (even if its set in Australia).

The Mail did a bit of a hatchet job on Ashley yesterday, saying that she's 'distanced' herself from various family problems in order to focus on her career. Nasty little article, and if you put that up against Charlie and her obvious love for her family, Ashley would perhaps have lost a lot of votes.

Is that a little stab at me is it? I'm not arrogant, I'm pointing out a fact. Ashley was a much more deserving winner - of course she didn't have a kid to cry over - but she was strong and funny and was really likable, Charlie seemed to not do much, except yap on about Kiki Dee. I just don't believe she deserved to win, but then again if we don't pick up the phone, then we leave the voting to others which usually leaves the wrong person as the winner, like all reality shows.

You seem puzzled as to why a DS poll is not accurately reflective of opinion In general. In my view the reason is simple. People who use this site and poll are a mere fraction of less than 0.1% of those who vote. Any professional pollster or marketeer will tell you this is far too small a sample to draw any trend or conclusion. Don't forget people who use DS are more likely to be under 25 or if over 25 more likely to be female. The voters on the phone are going to have a lot more older voters as they are less likely to participate in online message boards.

Finally a lot who participate in free polls on here don't actually spend money and vote.

I said to my mum on the first day of I'm a Celeb that Charlie would win it because she looks like the Iceland type, then when they started bringing Kiki into it I knew for certain she was going to win because as we all know... "Mums shop at Iceland"

Hahahaha that's going to go down well with the Charlie fans

Ive been viewing this forum for over 5 years without signing up... but yesterday was a travesty. Charlie is a nice lady, but no way should she have won that.. even when they were showing us her moments in the Jungle at the end, they had to find things to put in it.. most of it pulling faces that we didn't see during the actual shows..

Haha I tended to doze off during Charlies' phone call and didn't realise this had happened.

The producers really couldn't have been more brazen.

It was certainly biased. But I didn't see that the bias was toward Charlie. Indeed, for the first week, it was Helen, Helen, Helen. Then we got Rosemary and also, Ashley, David and Hugo (not to mention Eric) entered the mix. In fact, Charlie was in the background (and by the screening of the 'best bits/clips' on the winners show, we missed a LOT of what she was like in there - fun, funny, sweet and normal)! Those bits (and a whole lot more!) were never seen on the main show! Now that's biased editing - AGAINST Charlie.

The last few days was pretty much between Hugo, Ashley (although she was shown more and I was happy about that because I liked her a lot), David (especially the shower scenes and trials) and Eric and, finally, Charlie. The final two days were fairly equal.

So your argument doesn't even stand up as Charlie was shown the least of all of them. In fact, the editing was so skewed away from her that I am actually quite surprised she won (I don't mind, because I liked all of the final three).

And - writing a letter? Really? Because of an entertainment show? Unless you can prove actual fraud by the TV company (which you can't), then you're on a hiding to nothing. And I'm afraid this does all sound like what it probably is. Sour grapes that you lost some money.

It happens. It was a choice to put a bet on. Maybe you should just take responsibility for that choice. It certainly wasn't ITV's fault. They didn't force you to do so.

It's a shame people have to take these things so seriously. It's entertainment. Not life or death.

You can't say 'Ashley was a more deserving winner' as a fact. It isn't, it's simply your opinion. There are no real grounds for deciding who is the best, it is purely subjective.
Stating your own opinion as a fact is being a little arrogant as far as I'm concerned.

It is not simply my opinion, it is the opinion of quite a few people, but unlike others, I did not pick up the phone and vote, hence why the winner wasn't who I expected.

And there are real grounds for deciding who is the best, Ashley did more in that camp as we ALL saw with our own eyes, Charlie did hardly anything which we too saw with OUR own eyes, it's not purely subjective

Continue trying to get a rise out of me DaisyBill?????? A man are you? Because it won't work, oh and if you say i'm arrogant then I must be, I'm just going to look at myself in the mirror some more. Please reply, I will get back to you, I love all the attention you are lavishing on me.

Ashley was SHOWN more doing things in the camp (I did notice that quite often when we saw Charlie at all - which was not often - she was carrying logs to put on the fire).

Have people watched this show before? Do they not understand the concept of EDITING? Oh, yes, that's right - apparently, it was edited in Charlie's favour. Which is actually not true at all - as I've pointed out with my perceptions of it as a viewer who had no axe to grind against any of the campmates - aside from maybe Nadine, who unfortunately came across as arrogant (maybe she's not but that's the way she was portrayed), and Helen, who had me tearing my hair out at times (although she seemed pleasant enough otherwise).

People can't have it both ways. They have complained that Charlie wasn't shown enough to win and yet ITV skewed the editing so she could. Which is it???

Oh dear. I'm not a man. I'm not 'lavishing attention on you', I was simply answering a post on a forum.
And what you mentioned aren't specific reasons for winning, so they are subjective. There are no specific reasons for winning. People can vote for whatever reasons they wish, and their reasons and opinions are just as valid as your's are.

Oh dear it's called irony and sarcasm love. Bill is a woman's name? Well whadya know, I learned something new today. Big star for me

Charlie won due to the furore over the trial where she didn't get to see her daughter. Personally I thought both her & Ashley were great (judging from last night's finale) & either of them deserved to win. But bringing out Kiki before the result was announced was fishier than a fish in Fishingdon.