http://bigbrother.channel5.com/day-2...-perezs-return

There you go, clearly laid out what was really Perez’s fault, confirmed in some way by Chloe on BOTS last night. His main crime was constant attention seeking behaviour, and making sure cameras focus are on him. This is the source of the conflict in the house. Pure jealousy nothing else. Why didn’t they think to step it up, and show what they are about instead of focusing their energy and attention on him as well.

Hee hee. I knew there'd be a speech to the nation.

Who does she think she is? "This Country needs a voice"....... Michelle's? WOW!!! I don't think so.

Your link isn't working


http://bigbrother.channel5.com/day-2...-perezs-return

Fixed it... thank you

This woman just gets worse and worse.

I know! We've got over 60 million voices thanks love.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Michelle is using the political angle to mask and justify her deep rage and upset about Perez. She's wound up and she's projecting all that 'stuff' inside onto something that's more palatable for her psyche: 'it's not personal, it's political, it's a principle'.

No Michelle it IS personal. Just admit you can't stand him. The "British Public" whose favour you're currying really won't mind.

I've been saying for a long while now that, if only this sceptered isle had an unknown, barely credible gay rights activist who loathes gay men that don't conform to her narrow ideal (and who steal her limelight on celeb-based TV shows) speaking for it, we could stand proud once again and proclaim: "WE ARE BRITAIN".

Maybe she just doesn't like him. It doesn't have to be jealousy.

Heheh! The deluded arrogance of this woman knows no bounds it seems!

Michelle has joined forces with Katie H however she seems also not notice when Katie H nasty to other hms and by doing so almost condoning Katie H actions. Michelle is by trying to talk to the public utilising the same form of manipulation that Katie H is. Sorry ladies I'm not interested in your mendacity and sophistry .........have they read 'The Prince' by Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli whose ideas were eventually used against him. I wonder if the same will happen in their case?








Machiavellian

I like Michelle.

Well said. The woman is a joke. "What if I get to the final and I lose to that, then my whole fight will be have been for nothing" You couldn't make it up! The powerless, hopeless and needy British LBGT "community" will suffer if she loses to Perez, is what she's saying LOL.
Machiavellian indeed. No-one could ever have such insulting idiotic power crazed beliefs. It's a pity she's not clever enough.

We certainly saw her trying to manipulate Alicia into dropping Perez under the guise of caring about her wellbeing and "empowerment", so I definitely agree she's manipulative. But I'm not convinced it's deliberate contrived manipulation. Some people are innately skilled at manipulation without even consciously realising they're doing it. I think Michelle believes what she's saying about Perez. It wouldn't hold up to much scrutiny or challenge IMO, denial never does, but it looks like she's convinced herself this is a 'principle' and not a personal issue.

The sucking up to the "British Public" feels inauthentic though, for sure. Vote winning politician stuff. You only had to look at her relieved tearful face when she was saved by the public to know she's as desperate for acceptance and approval as the next CBB contestant.

She's a limelight, cash seeking drama queen. She actually turns my stomach. That short diatribe was one of the most telling so far.

It was really funny. She's so pompous: "my fight will have been for nothing!".

Oh give it a rest, Michelle.

This is the only thing about Michelle that frustrates me, I do like her. Strong, confident lady.
She sometimes has a look about her when Hopkins goes off but have only seen her speak once (from what I have seen) against Hopkins by agreeing with Nadia but she does then tend to backtrack a little like Hopkins changes the subject when she is losing an argument.

If she disassociated perez with being a representation for all gay men and stood up to Hopkins a little more when you can see she looks like she just might, I would have her down as a strong contender.

Yup, why can't she be honest instead of making a disingenuous fool of herself. Yes Michelle we also know you are desperate to make it in the UK, loud and clear..............The BIB, after he had the audacity to nominate her. Then her true colours very quickly emerged, from "families" to bribing. .

Let it go, stand up to Hopkins and let us see your real backbone. Duplicitous hypocritical sycophants aren't appealing.

"If i lose to that, all of my fight has been for nothing"

What fight!? She's nothing but a spare part, out of her depth. Shush.

Maybe she feels really passionate about the LGBT community, why on earth should this kind of attitude be mocked?

I won't mention past civil rights speakers, but if they were mocked and told to shut up on a massive scale, where on earth would the world be now?

Of course I am not saying Michelle is like people who have made a monumental difference, but the woman feels passionate about it, so she's ok in my book.

If she feels passionate about the LGBT community she should embrace *all* of it, warts and all, not just those bits she deems acceptable.

But otherwise I accept your point. Though how would you explain the 'This country needs a voice' bit? I mean, WTF?

Isn't it sad, that this so called lover of British culture has failed to notice that we have been churning out gobby gays and mouthy gay supporters for decades now.

They are probably one of our chief exports to the world...Hp sauce and Aunt Bessie's Yorkshire puds just can't compete

Why would we need to import her? She adds nothing new or exciting to the mix

My hearing isn't the best can anyone confirm did she say she doesn't care if he takes her place in the final ? if so how arrogant !

I'm not mocking her passion for her cause. I'm saying I don't believe it's her motive when she discusses Perez. I've made that pretty clear in two of my posts in this thread. I think it's cognitive dissonance cos she just can't stand the guy. I find her crying outbursts patronising and delusional.

And I know all about the civil rights movement having studied it at degree level. The movement needed passionate supporters of all shapes and size, I totally agree. But I doubt it would have had the same 'power' and credibility if Martin Luther King had been a white man.

Maybe she is aiming for a batter mix?

Bad I know

you know what you did was wrong....now go and sit on the norty step for half an hour

I know, off I toddle, will have to find three orifices for my three cheeses.