James led a campaign against Gary - and Audley - making Gary chief underdog and Audley runner up. We all love an underdog - myself included - and a vote for Gary was a vote against the nasty confrontational culture led by James.

He really only has himself to blame and if he is as intelligent as we are told he is, he will have worked it out by now. Oh the irony..

I think that's what Gary was referring to when he said all the other housemates "helped" him.

Yes Gary knew what he was doing and I think he handled their nastiness very well. The difference between him and James is that Gary knows the art of subtlety. Maybe James could learn something from him

Dee also played a blinder in assisting Gary to his victory.

True. Gary would have just seemed a bit weird if they had treated him properly, and he would have probably finished in about 6th place.

Dee, James, and occasionally George and the others were indifferent towards his disabilities and treated him like a naughty child - but it did give him numerous chances to show his patience and tolerance towards their obnoxious behaviour and gain our sympathy.

I think both James and Dee helped with Gary's victory.

I'd bet that if only one of them had been in the house, Gary's abuse wouldn't have been anywhere near what it was because they fed off each other to keep it going.

A bully is nothing without it's gang, especially when there is only one leader, not two.

Schmoozer, if I see any signs of James' intelligence, you'll be the first to know

Their behaviour to Gary was disgusting.

He's not a "naughty child". He's an adult person who suffered a brain injury in an accident. If he had a broken leg I'm sure people wouldn't be calling him for not walking.

I think for me the most digusting part was when they kept walking off while insulting him, or speaking under their breath insulting him while he was there. They wouldn't have done that against anyone else.

Just because someone needs some extra help doesn't mean they are a lesser person than anyone else.

It really brings out insecurites of people when they have to actually THINK how to handle a unique situation. Many of them proved how they can't cope.

Rubbish. Gary won as he pleased. There was nothing any of those moronic HMs could do to defeat him. He was untouchable as he was playing on another level from them all That's what frustrated the little camp man, his pathetic little sidekick, and their vile "mamma"

Some people are mature and graceful enough to accept they were outshone, outplayed etc.. Take the classy Audley as a perfect example. While sad losers like James, George and Dee will cry an "injustice"

CBBs #1 Legend> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k3k3SHmlt3b7908QELl

LOL She let it slip on BOTS last night that they decided viewers were only keeping Gary in because the hms were horrible to him so they decided to play nice. She and James (and most of the others except Audley) must be furious the public weren't fooled by their cunning plan.

We all love an underdog. I don't.

She has the morals of a blocked plug hole. Not hard to see how she had the stones to steal the money from the vulnerable. And I'll bet even now that she hasn't realised what she revealed. Stupid woman.

If James has ignored Gary then Gary wouldn't have won.

Coleen Nolan also helped Jim Davidson win the last series by making him look like the victim. In Jim's case, though, it was a deliberate ploy; stir the pot, get a reaction, walk away.

Like Jim, James had a similar nasty shit-stirring side, but he wasn't bright enough to use it to his advantage.

Don't get me wrong - I liked Gary and found him entertaining but that is not unique - what is unique is that in the first time in years I felt moved to pick up the phone and vote. I was voting against James and Dee, largely.

I agree that if James had left Gary alone then he would more likely have done well but not won.

Given that James was so desperate to win, it is ironic that he was the one feeding Gary's campaign. I hope he is enjoying the realisation fully..

I think it was definitely a 50/50 thing. Getting treated poorly can help lead to victory, but they also have to have the right sort of character to entice people to their side in order to see things from their point of view.

I don't really understand the criticism of 'he only won because of the way the others treated him' or the so-called 'sympathy vote'.
Surely the whole point of BB is putting a diverse group of people together and judging how they interact with eachother? So if those interactions help decide the winner then it seems like a perfectly legit reason to me.


Poor Coleen, it was actually Linda Nolan.
Coleen had her rather amusing under-the-radar thing with Julie Goodyear in her series.
I don't think we fully understood what Coleen could see in Julie until the last week.

I can't stand Coleen Nolan. I think she's a whining eejit but Julie Goodyear was just horrible. So disappointing. I was expecting Bet Lynch not that foul mouthed old harridan!

I disagree put see your point to a degree. I voted for him because of who HE is and would have done so regardless. But James and Dee together shoved his votes way up. Serves them right.

I had Gary down as my winner from day one......James I disliked after his drama on SCD and Dee and George should never have been in CBB. so no matter how they treated Gary he was always my winner

totally agree.gary was my winner from the very beginning when he asked emma what his 3 questions where.......and she,d already asked them!.he seemed like fun from the off.....something sorely lacking in the rest off them.