Cameron, Rachel, Luke A, Sophie.

Obviously it is entirely subjective. I found Anthony dull because the vacuous 'I'm just here to have a laugh' attitude never interests me. What moral doubts did he ever wrestle with? What did he learn? What complicated emotions did he show? None, nothing and none. So he is of no interest to me, any more than Josie, of whom the same applies, is.

The fact they won doesn't tell us anything. Even when winning they'll still only receive a tiny minority of votes from the viewing public. Most people don't vote.

We're not disputing their right to win their individual series though. They obviously received the most votes. We're debating who was the dullest out of all the winners. When these type of discussions happen the same names tend to pop up.

I think he coped well under extremely difficult circumstances. Craig was sexually harassing him and at times it ruined Anthony's experience. It was a very difficult situation to deal with.

I've always thought Kate was quite dull for a winner. She never really captured my attention during her series.

Not on here. On these forums, she has A LOT more people who like her than dislike her.

That does not make him any more interesting, though it arguably made Craig more so, giving him a 'story' that he wouldn't otherwise have had.

Oh Rachel is always massively popular on here. She was a sweet girl and seemed completely genuine.

'Interesting' doesn't mean likeable though and vice versa. I like Rachel a lot, but found Rex, who was surely less likeable, a more interesting person. And Aaron was imo more interesting than BB10 Sophie, though I liked her more. Luke was the first winner ever I have found both very likeable and fascinating as a personality.

Luke A for me.
Did nothing but grizzle and smoke .. yet he won

I don't think it's a matter of who you like or dislike. The question is who was the dullest winner.

I think Rachel was a nice person but I still think she was one of the dullest winners.

The fact he won probably says more about the series than it does about him. It was a terrible series, probably the worst. There were no big characters who will be remembered for years to come.

Would you agree he was a bit dull as well?

I'm one of those that finds Rachel interesting because of just how incredibly lovely she was to everyone and also of her resilience. She copped a hell of a lot of flak in the house but would always bounce back. I found it so interesting on if someone said something bad to her face, even if it was something really, really horrible, she wasn't really that affected by it. She's got probably the thickest skin I've ever seen in anyone in my life. I'd never seen anyone like that before. I actually find her not just interesting, but inspirational. I'd love to be like that in my everyday life.


Fair enough of this thread not being a matter of who people like or dislike. But the fact that more people on here like Rachel more than dislike her, says to me that the majority on these forums don't find her dull.

Why do you think he won? I am happy to offer a fair explanation for any winner that does not involve abusing either them or their supporters. I wonder if you can do the same?

Fascinating AND dull? Oddly enough, no. I can't see why anyone would think he was. Complex, thoughtful, self-questioning personalities are always more interesting to me than one-dimensional ones. I thought he was the most interesting winner to date. I thought Aaron was the second most interesting. One of them I liked a lot, the other I didn't, but that is my view on their INTEREST rather than their likeability.

Luke A, all he did was bitch and moan and smoke

No it really wasn't. He was a great team player, very loyal to his friends, far less bitchy than many in the house, a great friend to people who were upset, threw himself into the tasks, cheered people up when they complained about the normal house discomforts, had the most interesting conversations, by far, of anyone in there, and smoked EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT as all the other smokers, because the tobacco was split evenly.

One of the things I remember about Luke A was his loathing of the other Luke, and for no apparent reason, other than jealousy, perhaps.

I don't know why he won because personally I felt he brought nothing to the show.
His schtick was "acceptance" so if I had to give a reason as to why he won,I guess people were into that.
I didn't care one way or the other.
I'm not being mean btw,just honest.

1) Josie... that series became "duvet watch", and her never ending periods drove me nuts.

2) Rachel... yes she was nice, but I think Rex was right in the stark contrast between her audition and the real her... even she knew she was too boring to get on without pretending she was crazy/ fun.

3) Luke A... I hate that it became all about his acceptance, I got so far down the acceptance road that I didn't give a fig about his *journey* anymore and just wanted him to get off the ruddy bench and do something even slightly entertaining.

4) Josie again because she was so awful she deserves 2 spots, one for appearing, and one for not going away. Her stints on the spin offs showed she was still as boring, but now considered herself funny.

Because someone won doesn't mean they were hugely popular. It just means they received more votes than the other housemates, from the people who actually bothered to vote.

Only a small minority of viewers actually pick up the phone and vote.

To win the show you only need around 20% of the vote, maybe even less. There's usually about six in the final. It's possible the winner received less than 25% of the total votes made and possibly less than 1% of the total viewership.

Luke A

Also take into account multiple votes.

In answer to the question - Luke A, for me. I didn't dislike him, though.

But he wasn't entertaining off his own bat, he was just following Matt Lucas' instructions....

Yes Rachel and Luke-clear winners in the dull stakes.
Deep down I think there was a gameplan holding each of them back-I guess the gameplan worked as they won but each won by others ruling themselves out.

I think Josie and Cameron and Anthony were genuine and at least participated.

No one voted for him because of 'acceptance'. How very rude that people are still refusing to accept that people voted for him because they liked him the best and found him the most interesting to watch.


It proves that on the day they are MORE popular than any of the others. I don't know why you are even making this non-point. If people don't vote, their views can hardly be taken into account, but there is never any reason to believe that there is a big group of viewers who would have chosen a different winner.

Craig and Rachel won by the smallest percentage, Josie by the biggest. That really doesn't mean that Josie's victory is worth more than anyone elses, just that she had an easier final line up,

No reason in the world to suppose that they affect one winner (or one housemate) more than another. Presumably everyone gets multiple votes, unless they have no friends or family. Aaron surely got the most because votes were uniquely cheap in his year, but the same applies to everyone else in his series, so it cancels out.



I think we may have had the full pack of sour loser answers now. Someone whom the poster did not support won because they got multiple votes, because they got the sympathy vote, because they had a gameplan 'which worked'. Why do people find it so very, very hard to accept that others may genuinely and for good reasons support a housemate that they didn't?



In what? Josie was surely the most idle winner ever. Craig also spent half his time in the house in bed. Cameron did not join in half the social activities because he was not comfortable with them. I don't think Anthony ever had an interesting conversation from day one to the final night. Pete hid from every argument. Sophie refused to nominate when she felt like it. Brian Belo is perhaps the only winner to have participated with 100% enthusiasm in everything.

I agree with you in spirit, Rachel and Luke would probably be more worthy dull winners, but Josie wins it for me because I felt she dragged down the entire series. By the end it was like her conducting court from her bed. Even the HLs were "9am Josie is still in bed... 10 am Josie goes to the kitchen... 10.05am Josie is in bed". I don't think I will ever get over my anger, the LF was even worse. Don't even get me started on her "doing it for the fat girls" crappola she always spouted when she finally dragged herself to the DR.

Cameron I sort of forgive in that he wasn't the cause of the boredom, they were all pretty dull. Anthony gets a pass because Craig saved him by being creepy, and his having to sit and listen to Eugene's epic tales was hilarious.