Ashley did not know how to play the game for votes as well as Charlie did, she knew little by comparison to Charlie and this undoubtedly allowed Charlie to pounce.

People luv to view the eating tasks, especially female eating tasks and when Charlie started all of the gipping, coughing and faining that she was going to throw up, Ashley lost the crown that really should have been hers.

In essence, Charlie milked it for all it was worth, Ashley did not.

Gotta laugh at the Ashley fans - so desperate to explain the result away.

I disagree Charlie did it on purpose and I wasn't bothered who won but I thought that Ashley made the eating trial look too easy and that would go against her. I've noticed on Im a Celeb you need to winge and struggle to do the trial but actually pull it off in the end to get public support because then they see how brave you have been. Make it look too easy and your feat goes unnoticed

I'm not saying any celebrities do this on purpose merely the ones who are more vocal and animated tend to get more support for the trials.

Maybe you're right. I have to say I personally admired Ashley's 'get on with it' attitude more.

yeah Charlie was probably pretending to find the food gross, it was clearly very tasty...

Charlie's sensitive gag reflex had already been demonstrated on the show (for example when cleaning the dunny), she's clearly not faking her disgust. I would argue though that her performance in the task provided more of a spectacle than Ashley whose reactions were more controlled.

Ashley lost it in not losing it enough in the eating challenge? Losing it wins it? I've lost track... and my laughing shit... at the losing of plots as this so inconsequential, so low-end-drama, so over, so not good-vs-evil, gameshow spectacle is deconstructed as if it need be (and in so many yammering ways!)

Oh, what a glorious, tangled and ludicrous mess!

Charlie fans are obsessed by Ashley. The real puzzle to non-EastEnders watchers is how Charlie beat David and Eric, or even got into the top 5 come to that.

Being in EastEnders must have been the critical factor because, judging by Ant and Dec's pre-show predictions, Charlie had won it before IACGMOOH even started.

Kiki definitely also had an effect, but I don't believe the last task did.

Also on the spin off show I noticed a lot of cheering whenever someone mentioned Charlie was their fave but only joe awash was heard as support for ash. Tbf also most people had decided who they wanted to win by the time the eating task was aired maybe a few we're swayed but as someone else said I was more impressed with ash's attitude of just get it done than Charlie's.
Kiki being heavily featured also did definitely get more votes than lose them too..

From my understanding there have been other contestants in I'm a celebrity for past years who have also been on Eastenders. Apart from Joe Swash who won,they should have won too just by simply been on Eastenders but they didn't,how do you explain that?

Because they were minor players! Elaine something? Lucy somethingelse? I think Joe Swash would have been a contender whether he was in EE or not ... for all the whinging on here about him (and he is a trifle annoying now) he WAS entertaining on his stint in the jungle - his relationship with George Takei whilst in there was a highlight for me. Charlie Brooks however - is a MAJOR player in Eastenders - both the actress and the character. I honestly did wonder what the hell she was doing going into IAC - as she wasn't on the first step of celebrity and she was by no means 'on the way out'. This is why I think she WANTED it more than most - but unfortunately didn't contribute anything to the show - this is where the EE vote came into play.

I will argue with you there that Charlie didn't contribute anything to the show.She did her bushtucker trials when she was voted to do so.She never shied away from it and I did watch a couple of times when she voiced she wanted to do certain trials but others stepped in i.e David that they also wanted to do it.Not wanting to come across as quarrelsome or argumentive she let it go.She did well in the final trial too to overcome her fears and there were clips shown when she was funny and was seen to be caring to others.However she did not always get the airtime or video coverage.This does not mean she was not doing anything.This is a lie that some have said she did nothing.If you watched it and are honest with yourself you will know this is not true.I really hate generalisations which are untrue not only on shows but in real life too.

IWe'll have to disagree on this then. I like Charlie Brooks (I hate Eastenders - but Charlie is one of those rare people - she's too good for that show and she makes the character of Janine incredibly watchable) and I had really high hopes for her from the beginning. She never failed to disappoint though. She SHOULD have argued her point regarding tasks - instead she'd give a little whinge about it saying 'I wanted to but .... whinge, whinge, whinge'. For all her uselessness - Helen was at least entertaining.

Eric, Hugo, David, Ashley and perhaps one or two others were more deserving of the win. However - it is only a game and she got more votes - like XF - its a popularity contest ... but for her win - I'd have at least expected her to provide a bit more entertainment.

This certainly seems to be excuse number 55. I have often won series of rtv shows where my favourite hasn't won - usually in fact - but I do accept, when someone has won, that they did so by winning more support, fair and square. It seems wildly improbable that anyone switched votes during the last episode because Ashley didn't look sick enough.

I'm a non Eastenders watcher and wanted Charlie to win. Eric was my least favourite and I was neutral about David.

I actually thought Ashley came across better in the trial than Charlie did - but it's all pretty much irrelevant now and I am pleased Charlie won.

Really? Are you sure?

it was obvious Eric couldn't win. He was often obnoxious and the last person many people would want to be marooned with. Ant and Dec signalled that clearly. David was a question of whether people would vote for him for being ultra alpha and surviving easily - or find him too competitive and find his trials success underwhelming. The gitrls met the first criteria and did well enough to look successful survivors . Ashley did a bit better on trials, but she had more airtime. Charlie had a more emotional ride and a better story by the end.

Eric was edited to look obnoxious ... just as it seems Charlie was edited to look boring.

Charlie was edited to look boring in the sense of barely shown for the first half of the series. Once they did start showing her, she was not boring at all. I can't see how Eric can complain about his Eric: he kept boasting about how plain-speaking he was, and they showed him being plain speaking.

I don't watch Eastenders and I don't like children but Charlie was my favourite.

I don't watch Eastenders either but I do like children and Charlie was my favourite after Rosemary left.