She HAD to for her JOB. She's WORKING in the UK at the moment.

Now Perez didn't HAVE to leave his YOUNG child as he's fabulously wealthy, but he did. Unlike Michele Perez's YOUNG child doesn't have a second parent. So Perez's YOUNG child was left with presumably his sister or perhaps a nanny while he went off to stroke his enormous ego.

Still I'm quite sure all the contestants with children, whether young or old, didn't just abandon them.

They have to leave their children as a function of a job that they chose to take on.

No different to what Michelle did and no different to what millions of other mothers (and fathers) do every day.

In fact, if I could be bothered I would put forward a case re how her (Michelle) children's lives will be enriched by the amount of money she's made on CBB and it's aftermath.

The ability to be with your kids 24/7 doesn't make you a better parent and being able to buy them the things that they need is very high on the priority list of most.

We can agree to disagree on what Michelle had to do, and how much she has to buy. I'm not that materialistic myself, and as someone with years of experience of supporting and counselling children, I have learned that the most valuable thing you can give your children is your time.

I think you should leave personnel of armed forces out of this. It's an insult to compare Michelle's stint on CBB with what they do.

I don't know why you brought up Perez, rather than any other parent in the BB house. I was referring to an absence of five months and not one of a few weeks..

I didn't insult anything.

I merely pointed out that some people have jobs that take them away from their children for extended periods and that was an example that sprang to mind.

Being in the Armed Forces is a choice in most countries so if it's your assertion that leaving your kids in favour of work is wrong then it's wrong for everyone - not just parents who go on CBB

I made no mention of Perez.

By all means give a different example.

People in the armed forces don't leave their young children by choice. Most people sign up straight from school, before they are in relationships or have children, and they are then obliged to stay for a certain period of time, so the time out of their family life is mandatory, and a matter of honour, and not necessarily what they'd choose when their children are young. Anyway, I do think it's insulting to compare CBB to working in the armed forces, but we can agree to differ about that.

If you read the thread, you'll realise that Vesna, who posted before you, made reference to Perez. I was replying to you both.

As I said before, I did express myself too strongly, so it's better to leave things the way they are. I can justify what I said, but I think it's a waste of time myself.

You posted about Michelle working and the Armed Forces so I obviously thought you were replying to me only.

In order to make it abundantly clear re who you're replying to - there's the multiquote function or you could have just done something like 'Re Bunions post' and 'Re Vesna's post'

And your 'if you read the thread' comment is the kind of thing that really works my last nerve so I'm going to excuse myself now before I say something I'll regret.

Sorry about the confusion. Multiquote doesn't function on my computer, so I deliberately didn't quote one or other post, but replied to the general gist, since it's difficult to remember the names and posts of individual posters. I'd have clarified it after I posted, but the window for editing is very short.

I think you possibly misconstrued my request that you read the thread. I wrote:

"If you read the thread, you'll realise that Vesna, who posted before you, made reference to Perez".

It was a request that you read the thread after reading my post, to see Vesna's post. I think you misread my post and thought I'd written "If you had read the thread, you'd have realised.. etc."

I agree you need to step back a bit. You're getting your knickers in a twist about nothing.

All I know is I really liked her in the beginning,but went off her very rapidly,especially when she joined in with that cowbag Hopkins and her nasty ways.

I think that pretty much sums up the reason most people turned against Michelle. Because of association.

I don't understand that myself. I don't change my opinion of someone just because they like someone or something I don't like.

It was nothing to do with association really it was her gleeful joining in that turned most people off her. If she had been friends like Nadia was with Perez and hadn't joined in again you never saw Nadia grinding against the windows, then she would have been judged alone.

But Michelle never attacked anyone, she just got on well with Hopkins and I really think that's what some people struggle with.
Perez attacked Michelle a few times but I thought Michelle was very balanced through everything.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with association. She clearly demonstrated what she is without any assistance for KH.. She rarely attacked people to their faces, apart from Perez. She was a manipulative, spineless , hypocritical and bigoted woman. If Perez hadn't had the audacity to nom her on Day 9 this would have played out very differently indeed. She started the house divide against him that day.

She didn't have to attack anyone she had her little gang to do it for her headed by KH.

Yes she was the gun loader and the instigator. Can you imagine how different this would have been without Day 9 happening?
That's what I call a sore loser.

The bottom clip was after bananagate which she also hypocritically instigated and loaded the gun for KH, after this little bit of thieving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMSrG8nbR7E


This is a nice bit of the usual juvenile goading from KH. Listen to what Michelle is whispering to Alicia about her buddy KH. Alicia who she also happily slagged off and mocked behind her back, leaving KH to fire those totally unnecessarily cruel bullets.

http://bigbrother.channel5.com/day-9-katie-winds-alicia

They were very well suited in their adolescent ignorance.

Oh my knickers weren't twisted, I assure you.

You'd have to be wearing some.

How was she bigoted?

She was clearly intolerant of flamboyantly gay people, anyone who dared to disagree with her and vote for her, anyone who was different (Alicia). I think that qualifies as bigoted.

She works with drag queens, you can't be any more flamboyantly gay!!

You answered your own question. She used Perez's sexuality against him, to self promote and condemn him for what she considered to be unacceptable behaviour. We've had far worse in the house from straight men and she's a self deluded, totally self appointed and self promoting fool. She has no right at all to say how any gay man should or should not behave. I hope she never ventures near Gay Pride marches. She'd be apoplectic with faux outrage and shock. But yes she does and no she's not. Anything he did was bad in her eyes after he nommed her and she divided the house as a result. She had to carry on defending her stance, no matter how bigoted and hypocritical she was. Her manufactured hysteria in that respect was oscar worthy stuff. You do know that she had only met Perez once before CBB when she invited him onto her radio show and wasn't overly pleased that he didn't want or pursue a relationship with her? She commented on that very early on.
Gay men have commented on here that they are not happy about her electing herself as their moral guardian and judge of people and how she thinks she can lump together "the gay community" as one homogeneous mass.

Well then she should have known better than use his sexuality against him.

The most hilariously self-important Michelle moment was during one of her rants about Perez, when she earnestly cried "Britain needs a voice!".

Weirdly, they cut it from the highlights show.

I have a horrible feeling she believes what she says too

I thought I was really going to like Michelle when she first went into the house and did at the beginning but in my opinion, think she was the biggest game player in there and the most desperate to win.

I agree that Michelle tried to recruit HMs to her side along with Katie Hopkins. I specifically remember her trying to get both Calum and Alicia to go against Perez in the house.

However, the first house divide was shown on BOTS January 9th episode. After face to face noms, we see Perez and Nadia in the garden. Nadia claiming that Katie Hopkins hates her, even though we saw no evidence of this and even Perez seemed surprised to hear her say this. Perez then stated that Katie Hopkins had nominated him, Perez, because she saw him as her biggest competition in the house. Nadia spent a bit of time during early days trying to persuade Perez that KH was an awful woman. (I'm not saying she isn't, just that Nadia and Perez seemed to draw a line in the sand against KH before 3 full days had transpired in the house.)

If Perez had been more cooperative and kind toward other housemates, at this point, he may have been able to gather more supporters to his side of the house (which is what seems to happen in many series.) But Perez was too self-absorbed or stubborn and proceeded to alienate most of the other housemates with his actions...trying to control tasks, being the first to run to the hatch, storage room, etc.

I don't disagree but I think the annoyance they had was ramped up by Michelle and KH if they had been left to their own devices most of them would have let it go or someone would have told him more kindly to tone it down. I think that was stopped by Michelle who was determined to form a gang and Perez was just their lucky target.