For me it isn't about losing patience. It's the way they then speak to Gary. Lose your patience by all means, but there isn't any need to speak to anyone for whatever reason, they way they speak to Gary. It's uncalled for imo.

And if you do blow your top, there is nothing wrong with saying to Gary, sorry about that, I didn't mean to shout at you but you really started to tip me over the edge. Then explain why you got upset at him etc. Tell him what's wrong in a reasonable manner. Not point at him, shriek at him and the like. Then go tittle tattling to others just to either justify your outburst or to make matters worse and get folk on your side.




Edit. From what I see of Gary you could sit calmly and tell him. He's hardly confrontational is he.

Well said. The getting others onside is what gets me. Dee and James are massive culprits for doing this.

I agree with this totally...well said.

To take it a little further I have said right along that Gary is not nearly as incapacitated as he's portraying. If he weren't able to cope in the house then the production team, including the psych professionals, would not have allowed him to enter.

Last night he turned from amusing to watch, for the wind up factor, to completely vile.

Anyone to win other than Gary Busey!

I agree.

Of course people push you to your limits, not only Gary.

But crikey, just take him aside, speak to him as another human being, not something you've just stepped in. There isn't any need for that at all.

Unfortunately, it does seem to be common practice when some, not all, come into contact with senior citizens and those that may have some difficulties.

Seen it all before unfortunately and it really really is upsetting to witness.

Speak to someone how you'd like to be spoken to yourself and problems can be solved in a much better way. Of course voices will be raised etc, but there isn't any need to be quite so volatile towards anyone.

Dee has indeed presented herself as someone who cares for and looks after vulnerable people. Several of us were sincerely buying this 'salt of the earth, kind, compassionate and giving person' narrative from her stint on BStreet.

The truth is, she's not understanding or kindly. She selects favourites to mother/infantilise, and those who could genuinely do with some understanding acceptance and tolerance, get bullied and attacked by her and her baybays.

If Dee was in charge of a floor, I can see her protecting her favourites in the staff, isolating others, and creating a culture of fear. Of course she would be able to put on the most harmonious front to inspectors, with her comforting, homely tones. Oh just call Panorama now....

If he's as incapacitated as his supporters keep going on about, don't you think it's way out of line that his nearest and dearest let him go halfway around the world to participate in a notoriously difficult show?

If I were a Gary supporter I'd be more worried about his nearest and dearest, and the production team for allowing him there...........if he is indeed as incapacitated as it is claimed sooooo often on here.

Anyone but Gary for the win!

So very true.

So true. My very elderly mum was rushed to hospital a few years ago when she collapsed because of a heart problem. The first day I went to visit her there I couldn't believe it. One side of her face was black and blue and one arm purple and swollen. When I managed to find a nurse to ask what had happened as she had none of these injuries before being admitted, I was told she had fallen out of bed, but no one had seen it and that's what often happens with dementia patients. I said, 'But she hasn't got dementia'. The nurse just turned tail and walked off.

I think this is an excellent point, and worthy of repeating.

Dee's celebrity is fundamentally based on the way that she presents herself as a caring person who looks out for the vulnerable and needy folk who cross her path.

She often referred to herself as 'the Mum of the street' who everyone went to when they had a problem. Her door was apparently always open and cups of tea were doled out to anyone needing her time and support.

She presented herself as patient, understanding, compassionate, kindly and giving. Even in the scene where she apologised to Gary for - well we'll never know, maybe being told off by BB - she asserted that "that's not me."

The image she has of herself and the one she's presented to the world on TV, and importantly upon which her fame and celebrity status is founded, is it seems false.

Audley the boxer and Lauren the self-preoccupied ninny, are both considerably nicer, kinder and more understanding people.

Dee is quite a disappointment to those of us who would have loved to have been able to support her in the house, based on what we believed of her prior to her entry. But her 'caring' persona has slipped completely off.

I'm the same An, I just don't buy it at all.

Honest i have said before she reminds me of those awful women/men you read about who are nasty to the old patients(who have been secretly filmed) just looking at her, hearing her talking to him like shite, and her nasty aggressive look she gives Gary say's it all to me...and she is a self proclaimed caring person dont make me laugh...

There is no way I would trust her with my parents, she has anger problems and not a very nice person and certainly no patience.if I am being totally honest if my parents had to be cared for and looked after 24/7 I would be very wary if they were being looked after properly because of all the media cover about some of these homes treating patience very badly.

I think it would be playing right into her hands she would be quite happy not to work.

Big Brother is NOT a care home!

First James and then Dee majored on the need for 'Care' Gary had. In James case he used it to create an identity for himself as the person having to expend effort and patience on a dithering old man, Dee and George have supported James in this.

The truth is that Gary needs no more care than people you come across in every workplace every day. Most of us are happy to make small concessions because that is what humam beings do and most of us are not continually totting up favours we perceive are owed. Considering his past medical history I think he copes fine and would not suffer in the least should the 'care' some HMs supply be withdraw

And Gary neither needs nor receives 'care'

You really sound as if you know what you're talking about...good post

So why the posts about about Dee working in a care home?

For starters she must reek of cigarette smoke.....

Dee did used to work, but stole £13k from her employer, some the money in cash given by the clients to carers that was in envelopes in the safe for them. Wouldn't like her loose in a care home as I think people who steal like that will always be prone to do it but that's just my feelings and opinion and I am sure is not shared by everyone.

An unequivocal and emphatic NO. I would not want mine or others' vulnerable loved ones placed in her care or that of James, Ricci, or George.

They have all displayed contra-indicatory personal characteristics which would make them unsuitable for such a role. The main ones being:

- no/minimum empathy or compassion for a vulnerable person, or a person in a state of vulnerability or emergency need.
- unable to remain calm in a stressful situation.
- lack of constructive team working skills.
- unable to keep personal emotions out of conflict resolution.
- unable to put needs of others before own.
- unable to make own informed decisions.
- easily influenced by peers.
- very limited self awareness of effect of own actions on others.

And a contradiction which is Dee specific, is her past record of dishonesty wrt vulnerable clients (if her previous criminal record has not be spent).

Overall, they have demonstrated the above behaviour patterns whilst being aware that their actions are filmed 24:7; and are viewed and discussed by thousands of people. I would dread to think how they would treat vulnerable people if they were not under surveillance.

IMO.

BTW. In an ideal world, recruiters would benefit immensely to have access to a BB type observation process when making appointment decisions - especially for care workers. As you only get the true measure of another person when they are observed in a multitude of competitive and stressful situations.

I think you're right in a lot of what you write there. Of course that's not necessarily to criticise them, as not everyone has the requisite skills to be a good carer.

However, in this situation, if there were no cameras and no BB to intervene, it is somewhat worrying to consider how far the nastier behaviour towards Gary would go?

I thought Dee was a kind caring person who made a bad mistake. But I'm revising that opinion, and I wonder if her ability to steal from vulnerable people, was more of an indication of her own intrinsic lack of empathy for them - as displayed by her behaviour in the house?

[quote=BlackberryGirl;74706051]I think you're right in a lot of what you write there. Of course that's not necessarily to criticise them, as not everyone has the requisite skills to be a good carer.

However, in this situation, if there were no cameras and no BB to intervene, it is somewhat worrying to consider how far the nastier behaviour towards Gary would go?

I thought Dee was a kind caring person who made a bad mistake. But I'm revising that opinion, and I wonder if her ability to steal from vulnerable people, was more of an indication of her own intrinsic lack of empathy for them - as displayed by her behaviour in the house?[/QUOTE]

I am coming to that conclusion more and more with each passing day.

I hope we see her evicted tonight.

After the the treatment she has given Gary no way