She certainly divides opinion that's for sure.
I think trying to remain neutral during the last CBB was a tough one.

KH doesn't get half as much venom as some BB contestants have had really, the lovely Carole (who can forget her) nearly broke the forum on several occasions and the abuse was off the scale. Couple of others have had it too over the years even presenters haven't been immune. The difference with KH is she is carrying on after the show where others have disappeared as soon as it ended.

I am not keen on the nastier contestants but have to admit a slightly naughty thought of why don't they put all the monstrous people we have had over the years in together let them see what it's like living with a nasty person.

Agreed.

The 2 main characters both had a history of saying and doing horrible things and continued to do so in the house, they both wanted control so it was either team Katie or team Perez.

I liked Keith as he seemed pretty neutral and natural in there, and I don't remember any ridiculous outbursts from him.

Carole ? which was that, must have forgotten her.

Love the BIB idea.

Half way down the page http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...erry-boot.html initially I thought a nice mature woman - how wrong could I be

Maybe they could have a divided house as they've had in the past - all the nasties on one side and the nice on the other

Oh yes sounds interesting

Could get very lonely on one side the way they pick them these days.

It makes me feel quite sad to think of the number of people who follow KH's twitter feed and agree with her comments. She's an extremist in so many of her opinions but there are obviously a lot of angry or intolerant people out there who share the same views. More than I realised. The world is more corrupt and unbalanced now than it's been in my lifetime and yet she picks on the weakest targets and topics while celebrating the 'dog eat dog, survival of the fittest' mentality that corrupts our lives on a daily basis.

I've been thinking about what a world with Katie Hopkins' brand of free speech would look like....if we all started talking in real life like she does on her Twitter and columns, if we practised what she preaches.... and it categorically would descend into misery and violence. Imagine if we all started to just randomly insult complete strangers on the street or in the workplace or in the pub, calling them fat or scroungers or squinty-eyed or filthy rodents.

Fact is, some of her free speech would be classed as hate speech if it came from the mouth of someone with religious or political conviction. But because she's a zeleb and a paid troll, and deemed to have no power, she's given a by, as if her followers are less susceptible to extremist opinions than....ooh let me think.... muslims.

Good idea I wonder which side would get the most airtime

Thanks Mollie, I recognised the face, don't remember much about her to be honest other than I wasn't much of a fan.

I'm struggling to understand how remaining neutral fits into following BB and CBB.

Doesn't it go against the entire reason for and point of the show?

The day the HMs accidentally used her vegetarian nut roast as stuffing for the chicken was most memorable, they wait for her to return from the task room and would she discover it and would any of them survive the ensuing eruptions - the what's happening thread on here was electric

Well it would for me part of the fun is championing someone to win, then having to change your mind as you find they aren't quite who you thought they were

I thought the reason and point of the show was to see how strangers interacted with each other when locked away together in isolation - sadly that point seems to have got lost down through the series with too many wannabees and too much interference from BB

Well said.

I wish I could just ignore her, but, for the reasons you've given, I can't.

Championing someone to win and changing your mind isn't being neutral. I think objectivity is the right word. I changed my mind continuously throughout the show. I was pleasantly surprised by Hopkins for a time and thought Michelle was the most evenly balanced person in there, until bananagate.. Their deliberately hiding of food and then making a show of Alicia started the decline. The only person I couldn't bear at all from her foul entry VT until the end was Cami. Oh I forgot repugnant Ken but thank god he didn't last long. His reputation well and truly preceded him and he fulfilled every part of it.

Kara-Louise
That was my favourite days WHATMering ever!!! superb!! as you say it was electric and the atmosphere was amazing - live feed eh? those were the days funtime carole by highlights, nightmare misery by live feed.

That's completely lost in the present set up and without live feed. We get what they want us to see, their chosen misery, in regular doses of a few heavily edited minutes per day. The original ethos, taken from the book was Big Brother watching 24 hours a day, without any contact with the outside world. The personalities made the show as it should be, not BB's constant contrivance. This now bears no relation to Big Brother and is nothing more than a show like TOWIE. I don't choose to watch such shows and that was the reason I stopped watching BB, then stupidly fell off the wagon. It's only got worse.

I thought that too until just recently I realised it has always been a competition the winner gets the money. If it was going to be a true experiment no prize would have been given and we wouldn't have been encouraged to vote for winners and losers.

Well said. KH's freedom of speech is simply this. The rantings of a privileged, rebellious, unaware, simplistic, idealistic, (to suit her infantile defence of elitism and snobbery), pubescent teenager. Which is where she is very stuck, in just about every facet of her dysfunctional personality. She's never had to stand on her own two feet in this world and has no idea who she is, what real values are in life, because she's never had to find out or ever struggle to survive alone. She hypocritically cosies down and has hidden behind the constant protection of fathers, her own and other children's fathers and of course, their wealth.

It was in response to advise from nitpikin Anne, although I suspect you're right in a sense, I do think remaining neutral is a nice idea........... in principal. harder in practice.

I doubt it's possible best though is not to be too much a fan or too much hating anyone. Keep it in perspective. That's what I try to do, have the odd moment when I trip though.

I certainly couldn't do that with Ken and he proved me right. He is and always has been a deliberately offensive, unfunny sleaze ball. I'm also very well practised in objectively observing people from a counselling perspective. I liked Nadia a lot before, went off her from the start when she appeared to be interfering and trying t control too much, then changed my mind again when all became clearer. Hearing her talk afterwards, she more or less confirmed what I thought her position had been.

Remaining neutral is best.

That way you can criticise everyone.