DS Forums

 
 

So theres obviously cameras in the toilet to see how Jeremy groped Chloe


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-01-2015, 16:42
striing
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,776
There is definitely a camera in the toilet for normal BB but was there a decision not to put cameras in there for CBB? Some posters seem to be saying there was but I can't recall. Does anyone have any definite information one way or the other so we can out this to bed once and for all.
I'm pretty sure the celebs' contracts say they won't be filmed in the toilet. Whether that means there aren't any cameras or just that the footage isn't broadcast I don't know. I don't agree that they would have to have them for health and safety reasons. No other workplace requires that so it's a strange argument.
striing is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 11-01-2015, 17:20
dagger42
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 293
I doubt if there are cameras in toilets, but they all wear personal micro phones. BB has probably reviewed recordings including stuff that may have not heard on show and then made there decision.
dagger42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 17:26
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,433
I'm pretty sure the celebs' contracts say they won't be filmed in the toilet. Whether that means there aren't any cameras or just that the footage isn't broadcast I don't know. I don't agree that they would have to have them for health and safety reasons. No other workplace requires that so it's a strange argument.
I don't think it would be health and safety either. More, ensuring that there isn't a place where the celebs can go and communicate privately (or have assignations) without them seeing - even if thay are contractually obliged never to broadcast it and limit the number of people at Endemol that see it.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 17:26
Scarlet O'Hara
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,586
Has he admitted he touched her boob now then?
Not as far as I know. But no one is saying he did either.
Scarlet O'Hara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 17:29
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,433
His story was all over the place.
Yes it was. First of all he said he didn't touch or grope her. Then he said he barely touched her.

She on the other hand immediately said that he flipped her robe and got out her boob. However then in the diary room she said he opened her robe and exposed her boob. I think it is hard to say if he 'properly' touched it but he probably grazed it when opening the robe and even that is enough.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 17:35
muggins14
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Pit of Despair
Posts: 50,183
Yes it was. First of all he said he didn't touch or grope her. Then he said he barely touched her.

She on the other hand immediately said that he flipped her robe and got out her boob. However then in the diary room she said he opened her robe and exposed her boob. I think it is hard to say if he 'properly' touched it but he probably grazed it when opening the robe and even that is enough.
Legally just touching her clothing is enough. The intent was there to move her clothing to see what was underneath - it doesn't matter his reason or alleged reason, he wasn't invited to do so.
muggins14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 17:37
StarryNight1983
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,209
Not as far as I know. But no one is saying he did either.
There are plenty of people on here in other threads saying he did!!

They are accusing him of sexual assault which means for them to accuse him of that they must be saying he touched her boob??
StarryNight1983 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 17:43
Veri
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,778
Yes it was. First of all he said he didn't touch or grope her. Then he said he barely touched her.

She on the other hand immediately said that he flipped her robe and got out her boob. However then in the diary room she said he opened her robe and exposed her boob. I think it is hard to say if he 'properly' touched it but he probably grazed it when opening the robe and even that is enough.
I think that if he grazed it when opening the robe, he might have said he didn't touch her meaning he hadn't deliberately touched her, then later said he barely couched her meaning the amount of contact was minimal. In real-time, real life, people don't always phrase things in the best or clearest way.

However, I think his story was all over the place for other reasons. At one point he even seemed to be saying he thought she might be flirting.

Legally just touching her clothing is enough. The intent was there to move her clothing to see what was underneath - it doesn't matter his reason or alleged reason, he wasn't invited to do so.
What law(s) do you have in mind?
Veri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 17:46
Daemon666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 2,261
she specifically said he pulled her boob out, if I recall correctly. Not that he pulled her robe and so her boob fell out.

Am willing to be corrected with actual footage.
She may not have been talking literally, was emotional etc. There could be any number of reasons why she described the 'effect' of the touching rather than literally, what he touched. If he only touched the dressing gown and her boob fell out then she may, in the heat of the moment, say that he pulled out her boob, which is what happened as an effect but was not what literally happened. After that she has to repeat it every time otherwise her story is not consistent and someone will spot the inconsistency.
Daemon666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 17:48
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 14,737
There is endless speculation about this but we didn't see what happened.
How can we really judge this scenario? It will always be her word against his.
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 17:51
calamity
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,425
he's an unreliable witness due to his intoxication. if there's no camera there's no way to prove what happened as its just his word against hers
he could have denied it and didnt...
calamity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 17:53
threecheeses
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Left London
Posts: 19,882
People still saying he pulled her boob out?
All she said was he pulled on her robe and 'put' her boob out, clearly her boob fell out as he pulled on her robe.

I'm pretty sure he also said he 'barely touched it' referring to the robe but I would have to go back and watch.

It's disgusting how all the online papers and that tellymix etc have it described as groping or grabbing her boob and many, many posters on this forum.
threecheeses is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 17:53
factor50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: under the sea
Posts: 443
There is endless speculation about this but we didn't see what happened.
How can we really judge this scenario? It will always be her word against his.
but they gave the same story, what do you mean her word against his? he hasnt denied what he did.
factor50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 17:59
haphash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 14,737
but they gave the same story, what do you mean her word against his? he hasn't denied what he did.
His two opposing statements would suggest that the man was too drunk to recall clearly what actually happened. The point is did he do it deliberately thinking it was OK to make a pass at her? Or was he just so drunk he didn't know what he was doing?
haphash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 18:02
cah
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 18,890
People still saying he pulled her boob out?
All she said was he pulled on her robe and 'put' her boob out, clearly her boob fell out as he pulled on her robe.

I'm pretty sure he also said he 'barely touched it' referring to the robe but I would have to go back and watch.

It's disgusting how all the online papers and that tellymix etc have it described as groping or grabbing her boob and many, many posters on this forum.
I agree Cheeses don't know how people have got 'Groping' her Boob ,from what she said It was clear to me that her Boob Fell out from the tugging her gown aside as opposed to him literally pulling it out with his hands
cah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 18:04
Jacs75
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,010
He should not have touched her dressing gown even if he thought she had a bikini on or not. She went in there to help him not to be touched up. She said straight away she wasn't comfortable with what he did before she walked out of the toilet, and she had every right to be upset.
He over stepped the mark, he might not of intentionally meant to scare her but he did and I hope he gets the help he needs to over come his problems as he seems to be very troubled.
Jacs75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 18:05
factor50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: under the sea
Posts: 443
His two opposing statements would suggest that the man was too drunk to recall clearly what actually happened. The point is did he do it deliberately thinking it was OK to make a pass at her? Or was he just so drunk he didn't know what he was doing?
Either way i still think he was out of order. If someone I just met started opening my clothes, whatever their motives, I wouldnt like it at all. And he admitted he did do it.
factor50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 18:26
Scarlet O'Hara
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,586
There are plenty of people on here in other threads saying he did!!

They are accusing him of sexual assault which means for them to accuse him of that they must be saying he touched her boob??
Are they? I'd have thought voyeurism was the nearest offence given that he didn't touch her breast. There was no offence committed IMO but I'm no lawyer.
Scarlet O'Hara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 18:27
iMatt_101
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,713
They must do as producers wouldnt know how the groping happened. I think there is a camera in there for just the producers to see
Jeremy admitted it

If they were to have a camera in the toilets then the producers would see the HM's doing both number 1's and number 2's and pleasuring themselves

Don't think that would work
iMatt_101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 18:44
StarryNight1983
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,209
Are they? I'd have thought voyeurism was the nearest offence given that he didn't touch her breast. There was no offence committed IMO but I'm no lawyer.
Yeah in the "he got kicked out over that Seriously?" thread!!
StarryNight1983 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 18:46
YesNoMan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,409
OP has her own camera in there and saw groping, apparently, when even the victim didn't.
YesNoMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 18:57
Sansa_Snow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,191
Jeremy admitted it

If they were to have a camera in the toilets then the producers would see the HM's doing both number 1's and number 2's and pleasuring themselves

Don't think that would work
They do on civilian BB!
Sansa_Snow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 19:01
SpecialFried
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hello Summer, Goodbye
Posts: 3,385
Is everyone forgetting Katie's epilepsy?

I'd be astonished if they didn't have cameras in there. It would be massively negligent of them.
SpecialFried is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 19:02
SegaGamer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 19,601
I think a camera must be in that toilet and BB producers saw the footage and thats why he got ejected
Do you even read replies when you make threads ? you just seem to ignore everything anyone says
SegaGamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 19:05
Galacticus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 472
Jeremy admitted it

If they were to have a camera in the toilets then the producers would see the HM's doing both number 1's and number 2's and pleasuring themselves

Don't think that would work
I would be very surprised indeed if there were no cameras in the toilets, for various security and safety reasons. There will be contractual details about under what sort of circumstances this footage can be viewed and by whom.

Also there was something about the way the BB lady spoke about what happened (to Jeremy when he was being chucked out) which suggests that she had seen it.
Galacticus is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:13.