He could "win" by not being two-faced or nasty.

First of all, the honesty issue was about what he said about Chloe, not Eileen.

Second, he didn't just say Eileen was half way through her life -- which could have been a neutral observation and "simply truth" -- he said something like she'd had half her life and should go to give the younger ones their chance. I think that is considerably nastier than anything the other HMs said about her age, and most people seemed to see it as outrageous before this supposed "bullying" came along.


Sorry, but how is it a witch hunt? How does anything you say there mean it's a witch hunt? The idea that they "felt they had to target someone" sounds a lot more like they were looking for a scapegoat than it does like a witch hunt. A witch hunt involves looking for "witches", like McCarthy looking for Communists in the State Department. The HMs weren't looking for "witches"; they were reacting to things Simon did like repeating "I don't like you. I don't like you. I don't like you" until Chloe was in tears.

Re "inability to tackle" Marc, Jack was speaking up to Marc just the other day. Besides, what's the logic meant to be here? Unless they tackle Marc, they should let Simon be as obnoxious as he wants?

Nothing forced Simon to make the nominations he did, to use the reasons he did, to answer the questions or to give the answers he did. He wasn't even forced to nominate or answer at all.

I don't think Simon is experiencing a nasty form of bullying, more likely he feels a bit intimidated, especially when he more or less has the whole house against him standing round and telling him he's this and he's done that when his crime's are laughable really, but I guess some people enjoy doing this while others enjoy watching.....

I still don't see how letting the younger ones have their chance is a statement that you can react quite so histrionically about. And I'm using 'you' in a general sense, here. He was forced to nominate and he nominated Eileen. In doing so he wasn't overtly negative or nasty at all. Ditto in his comments about Chloe. The funny thing is his actual declarations aren't nearly as negative as the expectations are.

I think the generic expression 'witch hunt' doesn't have to be quite as literal as Salem or McCarthy. I think there's a reflected irritation with Marc punching Simon in the face because hms can't cope with gob almighty.

I liked how cristain said to them all leave it the guy has to live here. its between chloe and simon.

Similarly, the DS narrative made the other HMs nominations solely about her age, even though some of them didn't even mention her age.

The "I don't like you" clash, and the HMs responding to the way Simon was then, is what spawned threads about bullying, ganging up, uncomfortable viewing, etc. And Simon was very obnoxious as well as patronising and passive aggressive.

The dislike for Jack and the lesser dislike for Joel seem to be major factors in how this is being perceived.

Agreed.

I think the reason they all had a problem with him nominating Eileen, even though some of them had done the same, was because she was genuinely pleased he was back in the house and he had been spending a lot of time with her (and knew her outside of the house?) whereas many of them nominated her as they 'didn't connect' so presumably hadn't spent as much one to one time with her. That and the fact Showbiz suggested she was over the hill and should go for that reason when he is only 6 years younger.

Yep, me too.

The DS narrative also made Showbiz' nomination all about age - even though it wasn't at all. He and Sam at length discussed the fact that she spent all day in the bedroom and didn't interact. I made a few feeble attempts to interject this into the DS narrative but it was all - Why Is He Saying She's Old?!!.

Simon is was and always will be obnoxious, but passive aggressive he really isn't. I think it's perfectly understandable that he's a little on edge. He was selected as a hm and evicted immediately. Then he was put back in and immediately asked to nominate two hms for eviction. Then those nominations were exposed. Then he was asked into the DR to discuss his choices; then THAT conversation was exposed. I think passive aggressive would be a measured response; to be fair..

And I re-iterate; despite all of the above, I don't like Simon. I just think it's a very, very lazy dupe and it's depressing how easily it's sailing.

I don't know what "it's a lazy dupe" means.

Anyway, Simon was pretty clearly passive aggressive in the lead up to the "I don't like you" clash.

Well basically it means that it's a lazy trick. He's the blatant, obvious target, or trick. So it's lazy.

I think Simon was clearly - and completely understandably - defensive. Not aggressive. Thanks to the driven narrative, he's been on a conditional back foot since he came back.

You'd have to, since I haven't been histrionic.


He was not forced to nominate. The bb10 HMs proved that HMs aren't forced to nominate. (Not that it should ever have been in doubt.)

I think it's quite telling that there are attempts to defend Simon by saying he can't win, because he was criticised for being two-faced, but when he instead told Chloe what he thought to her face, he was criticised for that too. It's telling because in effect it acknowledges that the issue was originally that he was two-faced, and rather than try to justify what he did then, takes the "can't win" line.

However, he wasn't criticised for saying it to her face: it was for what he said and how he said it. So he could "win" by being neither two-faced nor (when telling it to their face) obnoxious, rather than being first one, then the other.


It's not literal in the McCarthy case. But the McCarthy example is how the phrase is normally used. There ought to be some metaphorical "hunting" for some metaphorical "witches". It's like "sour grapes". There ought to be some "grapes" and something "sour" about them used as way to devalue them. Well, "sour grapes" seems to be losing its distinctive meaning and becoming just as way to say "sore loser", which is a bit strange, because we already had "sore loser" for that. But I didn't think "witch hunt" was going the same way.

I can't even be sure what you're using it to mean. What about this makes it a witch hunt?

I

The problem with your initiial argument is that his two-facedness is based on a false premise. He likes, or liked, Chloe, personally. He equivocally felt she was sailing quietly to the final. And I, for one, absolutely agree with him.

Sorry, but I'm finding it hard to make sense of that. What are you calling my "initial argument", and what is the "false premise"?

Exactly, they are making him out to be a monster for exactly the same things they have done themselves.
They dislike him so seize on any little thing to paint him as a bad person.
He was obviously not happy in what had happened the day before so was expressing it to Danny on the bed, and then when Chloe walked in mid conversation he didn't want to be seen as being 2 faced again so let her know how he felt straight. He probably went about it in the wrong way but he seems like a guy totally rattled & out of his depth.

Joel & Jack created the situation with Chloe (who had herself slagged Simon off to everyone beforehand so is a hypocrite) by over exaggerating what they said they saw to get everyone against Simon and it has worked which has sent Simon (who Eileen seems to think is unstable ) into a tailspin.
And then they condemn Simon to the other housemates & the viewers by saying things like 'we have given him 3 chances'... yet they have had a hand in engineering the situations that Simon has been condemned for.

Criticising Jack and Joel makes a lot more sense than the more general claim that there's ganging up, a pack mentality, bullying, a witch hunt, etc -- especially since Jack and Joel (or at least Jack) gave Chloe a misleading version of what Simon had said.

That's one of the places where these arguments lose me. They have not done the exact same thing. Did anyone else say Eileen has lived half her life and so should give younger HMs a chance? (No.) Did any say that after telling her they loved her, was thrilled she was still there, etc? (No.) Did any respond to someone asking why they'd brought something up again by saying "I don't like you. I don't like you. I just don't like you", and when asked again, "I don't like you. I don't like you. I don't like you. I don't like you. ...", and when asked why, returning to "I don't like you. I don't like you", until this patronising, passive aggressive, deliberately irritating stuff had the person in tears? (No.)

Various hms have voted for Eileen because of her age and a lot of them are fake and two faced too. Look at how they were talking behind Sam's back but are nice and fake in front of her.

Simon was vilified for not being honest and then when he starts being honest hms and fm wanna crucify him. What exactly do you guys what from him? And folks gotta show some consistency, you can't demonise one housemate for being bitchy then give a pass to another.

Chloe got what she deserved. She went under the belt with that 'flop' line.

Even if such things are true, they're not exactly the same things Simon has done.

And the differences are such that what Simon's done can be considered worse.


It was for what he said and for his "I don't like you. I don't like you. I don't like you. I don't like you. ...", not for being honest. If Simon's dishonest, and then obnoxious when he's "honest:, he's rightly criticised in both cases.


Maybe they should all be thrown out and the show relaunched with completely different HMs. Then we wouldn't be in danger of 'demonising' one and giving a pass to another.

Same crime, slightly different contexts. What has Simon done that's so worse? Chloe is just as obnoxious with 'im a young girl' bs.


To throw all hms out and start again is nonsensical. I just think that some fm need to exercise some objectivity and less biased when passing judgement on hms.

It's just typical BB nonsense lol. It could technically be classed as bullying as they are trying their best to get everyone to ostracize the person they don't like, but BB at the heart of it has become a cut throat contest to win a big sum of money... a battle of wits & a survival of the fittest where we the viewers usually get to decide the outcome.
The contestants should be able to act however they want, and then it's up to us the viewers to pass judgement on what we've seen in evictions & the eventual winner. Sometimes justice is served, sometimes it's not... and it's always in the eye of the beholder anyway.

I don't like Jack & Joel and think they are sly & manipulative as f**k and hope they get their comeuppance... but if they don't I will yet again just put it down to the fact that not every BB viewer can be as intelligent & perceptive as my good self

the housemates are just reacting to his behavior and if he altered his fake behavior then they would react better. I would hope that by his age (longer time to learn information) he would have heard of operant conditioning and classical conditioning (behavioralism). It not they are picking on him for no reason or for trivial reasons. And their picking on him is NOT bullying…watch the systematic isolation of Perez from the last CBB and that Katie H's verbal attacks--vicious…now that was bullying. Also Half-Wit (Freddie) in an older BB was bullied (painful to watch). IMO, Simon isn't bullied and all his crying seems fake to generate public sympathy. If he is truly upset then I feel bad for him and I hope he learns to alter his behavior (it's not like he is being "real")

The actions are different, not just the context.