Aaron's Ejection Had NOTHING To Do With His "Offensive Behaviour"

3 of 5

lightblues

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by LMAO:
“Was she nekkid & did they ask her to stop?... If so, then yes she should have been removed.

I see a lot of posts comparing apples with oranges, LOTS of HMs have gotten naked & done stupid things when they were drunk, Aaron was not evicted for that. He was evicted because he was invading another HMs personal space while being naked & stupid, there is a huge difference.

Joel was clearly uncomfortable & trying to diffuse the situation without being rude to Aaron, but Aaron was too drunk or blind to read the signals & the other HMs were egging him on. Whatsherface who was in that secret room with Daley, she kissed him & was flirting with him, but when he slapped her butt & put his arm on her neck she felt uncomfortable & he also failed to read the signals & was ejected & also Jeremy opening Thingys dressing gown & flashing her boob.... Again, invading personal space

Most of the other examples I have seen people quoting, are of HMs showing off to the cameras (and the public) not targetting individual HMs - Though if Bianca was naked doing what you described, I agree she should also have gone.”

Daley was out of order , but only turned when Hazel pulled down his shorts to expose his genitals to the nation, she crossed the line there and BB were too slow to intervene in that particular instant.Aaron was rightly shown the door, unacceptable behaviour

Bowdon

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by wallster:
“I think it is now generally accepted that Aaron's actions didn't justify his punishment, so therefore the focus has to be elsewhere.”

It isn't 'generally accepted' at all.

If the incident had been isolated then yes I think it was an over reaction. But what a lot of people are missing is that this was something that happened over a period of time that gradually got more and more aggressive from Aaron.

I do wonder if he was warned or something before.

The only thing in fairness to Aaron regarding his treatment is that if they was going to kick him they should have done it when they called him in the first time instead of telling him to go back to bed. To then call him back in the next morning and boot him was a delayed and unfair reaction.

muggins14

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by Bowdon:
“It isn't 'generally accepted' at all.

If the incident had been isolated then yes I think it was an over reaction. But what a lot of people are missing is that this was something that happened over a period of time that gradually got more and more aggressive from Aaron.

I do wonder if he was warned or something before.

The only thing in fairness to Aaron regarding his treatment is that if they was going to kick him they should have done it when they called him in the first time instead of telling him to go back to bed. To then call him back in the next morning and boot him was a delayed and unfair reaction.”

bib - I wonder if they don't have a sit down with a team, legal team probably, and look at the pro's and con's, whether they think the backlash would be worth it, the publicity, whether Aaron had indeed overstepped the mark, along with other things of course. I imagine they have to be legally covered before they take any action of this kind.

jojo the joyful

29-05-2015

I can't help but think of the world of difference.

Aaron, a gay guy set his sites on Joel a straight guy. Aaron mature & has been around the block a few times (& a few times more by all accounts), & Joel young. with a good head on his shoulders, but inexperienced with what "that side of life" can throw at you.

Then I think of poor dear Craig with his fixation on Anthony.

Craig was far more relentless. (I still see him preganat). but Anthony handled him just fine.

It can be argued that Anthony. older defused the situation better, I agree, but Aaron was sooooo much "in his face" & Joel that tad bit more naive, although IMHO handled the situation with great maturity.

I am sorry but I am about to offend a lot of people, but it is almost as if Aaron thought " I fancy him, I will make him gay at all costs" & he did offend.

What is offensive to males & females alike is trying to turn sexual orientation for your own lust.

Astute

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by muggins14:
“bib - I wonder if they don't have a sit down with a team, legal team probably, and look at the pro's and con's, whether they think the backlash would be worth it, the publicity, whether Aaron had indeed overstepped the mark, along with other things of course. I imagine they have to be legally covered before they take any action of this kind.”

I think this is what happened .
THEY allowed it to go too far and now were advised they had to mitigate any further damage .
They should have warned Aaron on earlier occasions.
Then in this incident again ,allowed it to go way too far before taking any action.

I think they would have done better with an advisor sitting in instead of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted

radders2012

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by wallster:
“That is more a reflection of you than anything else.”

Although I'm not the poster you replied to I would be interested to know what you mean by that - I know what it seems to infer but I am not going to jump to conclusions so would appreciate if you could clarify.

ChipDouglas82

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by Philip_Clarke:
“Hmm, This is the first civillian series I've watched since the Pete Bennett one. I'm starting to see why.
BB is famous for its double standards and it just get's more ridiculous.
in BBS Brian Dowling ran about naked and stayed in. in CBB Rylan Clark was naked at the windows in the garden, he stayed in. Aaron was ejected. er.....”

Neither of those were unacceptable behaviour though, if they had gone to one of their fellow housemates and flashed them, they would have rightly been evicted.

Hollie_Louise

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by wallster:
“I think it is now generally accepted that Aaron's actions didn't justify his punishment, so therefore the focus has to be elsewhere.”

That's why both polls on this forum questioning whether he should have been removed came back with the answer that he should have been?

shelleyj89

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by wallster:
“I think it is now generally accepted that Aaron's actions didn't justify his punishment, so therefore the focus has to be elsewhere.”

No it's not generally accepted that Aaron's actions didn't justify his punishment.

Philip_Clarke

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by ChipDouglas82:
“Neither of those were unacceptable behaviour though, if they had gone to one of their fellow housemates and flashed them, they would have rightly been evicted.”

Certainly in Rylan's case there were other people around

sleepypoodle

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by Bowdon:
“The only thing in fairness to Aaron regarding his treatment is that if they was going to kick him they should have done it when they called him in the first time instead of telling him to go back to bed. To then call him back in the next morning and boot him was a delayed and unfair reaction .”

The decision to eject Aaron from the house would have been made by a senior producer after carefully reviewing the footage and seeking legal advice.
- I very much doubt that such a member of the team would have been available at 02.30.

Personally, I think that it was completely appropriate to kick Aaron off the show, his behaviour was completely unacceptable and had he been a male housemate behaving in such a sexually threatening manner towards a female - there would have been absolute outrage and possible police intervention.

I do however think that Harriet should have been given a final warning for blatantly encouraging Aaron to sexually harrass Joel...no doubt her 'punishment' will be served on friday

ChipDouglas82

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by Philip_Clarke:
“Certainly in Rylan's case there were other people around”

I had no interest in the celeb version, even more so since Rylan was in it. But I heard about it.

Brian's actions were harmless.. if he had gone and rubbed his crotch against someone, then that would have been a different story.

nomad2king

29-05-2015

A key difference is that in the other instances the flashing was generalised in nature and not directed at one person in a sexual way.

Arcana

29-05-2015

I'm pretty certain his ejection had SOMETHING to do with his behaviour.

Astute

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by Arcana:
“I'm pretty certain his ejection had SOMETHING to do with his behaviour.”

Or else he "apologised in vain

JanisElizabeth

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by wallster:
“That is more a reflection of you than anything else.”

The fact that you seem to think Aaron's behaviour was acceptable in any way is far more worrying!

JanisElizabeth

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by wallster:
“I think it is now generally accepted that Aaron's actions didn't justify his punishment, so therefore the focus has to be elsewhere.”

Translation for BIB

I read 20 posts and out of the 20 19 thought Aaron was in the wrong and one of them agreed with me so in my mind my view is generally accepted!

Musick1

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by muggins14:
“Rylan and DAN's wedding - she and Dan are friends, have been friends since they were on the show together.”

As I said, she's bridesmaid for Rylans wedding. She got special treatment in the house. It's pretty much a case of "who you know" in BB land.
I will put money on it that Danny will stay tonight because he has BB connections. Wait for it....

patsylimerick

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by JanisElizabeth:
“Translation for BIB

I read 20 posts and out of the 20 19 thought Aaron was in the wrong and one of them agreed with me so in my mind my view is generally accepted! ”

Eh?

The poster said that many people - including myself - don't think what he did justified the punishment of ejection; NOT that he wasn't in the wrong.

Veri

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by Bowdon:
“...

The only thing in fairness to Aaron regarding his treatment is that if they was going to kick him they should have done it when they called him in the first time instead of telling him to go back to bed. To then call him back in the next morning and boot him was a delayed and unfair reaction.”

I don't think they've ever told a HM they were going to remove them from the house and then let them go back to bed. So they'd be removing him in the middle of the night, like they did with Emily. There were many more complaints about the way they removed Emily than there have been because there was the usual delay in removing Aaron.

Originally Posted by muggins14:
“bib - I wonder if they don't have a sit down with a team, legal team probably, and look at the pro's and con's, whether they think the backlash would be worth it, the publicity, whether Aaron had indeed overstepped the mark, along with other things of course. I imagine they have to be legally covered before they take any action of this kind.”

There may well be some legal discussion, but I don't think it has to take so long that no decision could be made until the next day. I think they also review footage and probably consult with C5, since C5 has responsibility with Ofcom for what's broadcast. They also seem to consider what the other HM says.

Astute

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by Veri:
“I don't think they've ever told a HM they were going to remove them from the house and then let them go back to bed. So they'd be removing him in the middle of the night, like they did with Emily. There were many more complaints about the way they removed Emily than there have been because there was the usual delay in removing Aaron.

There may well be some legal discussion, but I don't think it has to take so long that no decision could be made until the next day. I think they also review footage and probably consult with C5, since C5 has responsibility with Ofcom for what's broadcast. They also seem to consider what the other HM says.”

It does not have to take so long - you are right but there seems to be a lot of incompetence there.
This should have been dealt with on earlier occasions .

Veri

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by patsylimerick:
“Why do people have to be so bloody black and white on here? No room at all for the subtlety of the conversation we SHOULD be having after seeing something like that. I'll repost what I said earlier:

A lot of people have said that if Aaron was a straight man and Joel a straight woman, there would have been uproar. I think the comparison is disingenuous.

The first reason is the context. The context is entirely incomparable. If that had been a straight man doing that to a straight woman others would have stepped in straight away and there wouldn't have been an air of hilarity about the room with several housemates actively encouraging Aaron. Without the hilarity and the encouragement, drunken Aaron would have stopped much, much earlier.

So why do people laugh when it's a gay man chasing an (apparently) straight man.

Maybe it's because they've observed these two together; their baths and conversations; their MUTUAL flirting. Now Joel would vociferously deny he's flirted back, but I don't think that's fair. If he was that uncomfortable about his own sexuality he wouldn't constantly indulge Aaron's conversations about it and camp it up in front of Aaron. He's blatantly conflicted about how he's reacting to Joel - but reacting he is. Aaron knows it, Joel knows it and we know it.

Whatever's going on with Joel, the BB house is not the right place to be going through it. And Aaron was absolutely out of order. He should have the cop on the let whatever's happening happen at it's own pace. But he was drunk and he's young and a bit stupid.

In any event, I strongly believe that a conversation with both of them, separately, a conversation with both of them together - by BB - and a warning would have been more than sufficient.

Can I also add that this incident is completely incomparable to the Hazel/Daley or the Chloe/Jeremy incidents. Hazel and Daley were on their own, he was clearly angry and aggressive. Joel and Aaron were not on their own, Aaron was not angry and everyone in the room - including Joel - was laughing. Chloe/Jeremy - again they were alone and Jeremy didn't expose himself, he exposed Chloe. In any event, we didn't even see what happened there so we cannot compare them.

So many people on here have to fit every incident or interaction into some pre-supposed box. It's depressing.”

That is an excellent post. Unfortunately, there seems to be no end to the false equivalences that will be drawn.

Veri

29-05-2015

Originally Posted by Astute:
“It does not have to take so long - you are right but there seems to be a lot of incompetence there.
This should have been dealt with on earlier occasions .”

What should have been dealt with on earlier occasions?

It's not incompetence that has them wait until the next day before throwing the HM out. If they did it sooner, they'd have thrown him out in the middle of the night like they did Emily.

Conehead

29-05-2015

The OP doesn't see Aaron as "some sort of sexual predator" that "might flash you in the park".

I disagree - I see him as a sleazy bullying exhibitionist who might well fit the above description.

His exit has been one of the highlights of the series.

Littlegreen42

29-05-2015

As a viewer it looks all lighthearted and almost funny, but you can see Joel visibly cringe a few times and he even says "please leave me alone" under his breath.

I believe how Joel described the incident was the cause of Aaron's removal...

Joel said he has never experienced someone like that, or someone behaving like that (basically a naked bloke gesticulating around you/on you) and he felt really uncomfortable and unable to stop it.

Joel wouldn't have wanted Aaron removed as they were close in the house, but if BB had not removed Aaron - I imagine the complaints would have flooded in.

3 of 5