I haven't watched all of this week's shows, so apologies if this has been dealt with or clarified or if there's something I've missed … but it seems to me that BB has been repeatedly editing Simon to misrepresent his reason for nominating Eileen (and indeed Emma asked questions which continued this misrepresentation).

From what I can tell his ACTUAL reason was that Eileen, as someone with "half her life behind her", had achieved a lot and had many great experiences, and that the opportunities of BB would be best given to someone who was younger and starting out. He actually did not need to mention age at all to make out the nomination.

Compare that with the complaints made by other HMs in earlier weeks, where there were suggests in nominations and house chat that Eileen didn't fit in or needed more sleep or whatever, and which were often explicitly connected with her being older.

It was also not clear to me that Simon had anything to do with linking Jack's nomination to gambling - is that right? If so, Sam really seemed to wiggle out of that with some outright lies!

I'm not saying this as someone who was a particular fan of Simon, but if people (including the BB producers!) are going to pile crap on him, they should at least be clear about the reasons.

I don't think it would of mattered the reason for nominating Eileen, it's the fact that he did it to her.

They all felt Simon had been her best friend, and to nominate her was a two faced action.

Well they are total idiots to think he was her best friend,he doesnt know her at all.All this best friend rubbish what a load of twaddle.

This wreaks ageism, no misrepresentation or confusion on anyone's part.


Simon told Sam about Jack's gambling problems and he told Sam to use it as a reason. When confronted, Simon eventually admitted it was him who told Sam of Jack's gambling addiction.

He tricked them by his actions. I guess he acted like her best friend and they fell for it.

So where is the mentality of them to say "best friend", they are strangers, its not like they have met and become good friends for years.

BB pushed all the 4 newbies with the agenda that the house was boring and they were added to spice it up. With that in mind when he was discussing the noms with Sam he was saying about who adds what to the show and it's not about who you like.

His first and main reason was about Eileen not contributing much and sitting on the bed all day, that part was fine but then he added Joel, who although for some isn't an obvious character as he isn't all about slapstick humour he is a central character for those who like to listen as well as watch. He can be very funny so Simon got that part wrong and should have gone for the likes of Chloe, Danny or Cristian for his 2nd nom, to be consistent.

The whole age argument was just filler.

Again with Jack the gambling part was just filler as Sam was too wimpy to say anything else negative.

The same with the ridiculous Chloe argument. He tells her she thinks he deserves it as she is starting out in life, from a personal point of view but in the DR agrees with marc that she doesn't deserve it for entertainment purposes, it's not two-faced and not even hypocritical.

BB set him up by pushing him with the idea of getting out those who are boring.

So why didn't they nominate Chloe and Cristian or even Danny along with Jack ?
They have to be the most boring HMs in the house.

"Best friends" it can be relative. Best friend in the house, not Best friend ever.

They met and got along on launch night. She'd missed him when they left since she was the odd one out (age wise) and when he returned, she hugged him as if they we're reunited lovers. It was way over the top from Eileen, true.

But iv got no reason to doubt that he acted like she was a valued housemate to him.

That is exactly what I questioned, he started off on the right foot.

Simon nominated her because she was too old. When asked earlier what he was bringing to the house he spouted on about age and experience blah, blah.
What an obnoxious hypocrite, pots, kettles, black and all that! Still I don't want to see him go too soon, I really am enjoying hating him. I want to see him taken down a peg or two before he leaves.
Chances is are though that someone will throw reality in his face, he won't be able to take it, will have a hissy fit and leave declaring that he doesn't need it, he has a car, a company (that doesn't have a great record of paying its actors) blah, blah.

Well in that case why has he gone in the house considering he is of a similar age ?

He is a lier and sprouting crap .

well now Simon is the oldest in the house.

What i don't understand is that by getting rid of Eileen he now has become the oldest hm and so made himself a prime target for noms - he's isolated himself and made a MASSIVE tactical blunder by leaving himself alone in a house of younger hms.

and of course if any of them dared to use the same excuse to nom him that he used on Eileen, would he think it fair.......?

Simon mentioned meeting her last year so it's more than just launch night but it was Simon who acted like he was her best friend and was so thrilled to have her in the house. In order to take Simon's side one would have to enjoy liars. I don't enjoy liars so I can't take his side.


Clearly it's crap since he then went on to nominate the youngest hm.

Oh come on it happens every time they show nomination and is magnified when they only show a few people and everyone else can "forget" they have to do it to.

Doesn't matter which of the originals he picked..or what reason he gave..they would have found a reason to kick off over it

No sorry I don't agree Simon the guy who is the SAME age as Eileen nominates Eileen for having lived half her life already. It's not a valid reason on any level. It pissed me off so why would I begrudge anyone else being pissed off about it?

I hope they all nominate him for being an old stick in the mud . All he does is whine, moan, complain and fake cry. That is NOT entertainment IMO.