Nick said he wouldn't have taken the prize fund for personal, material items. Not for the chance to be in the final.

That's like chastising someone for saying "I don't like fruit" and then going on to eat a carrot. It's not the same thing.

But Nick isn't being chastised. Jack is.

I like Nick, Joel and Jack. You are quite right though that there is a 'one rule for one, one rule for another' when so called transgressions occur.

Jack is the weakest of the three in terms of being able to provide a coherent argument in his own favour, and I feel that the others are starting to look like a team of jackals, pouncing on and exploiting this weakness.

No he didn't.

The difference is that Jack made BB an offer for a laugh (his words). Nick however, was taking part in a task as required by BB. That's what differentiates the two actions in my mind, one was voluntary, the other mandatory.

Neither action bothered me really though.

Something that has also crossed my mind, that is if he was indeed honest about not having many friends.


Completely agree. Great OP too.


I find myself being backed in to that corner also

Well, in that same token then, he also didn't that that he wouldn't use money from the prize fund to get into the final.

Some people here are using very broad brush strokes. Jack weaseled out of his dipping into the prize fund because nobody thought it was funny. It was also for menial items that were of no use to him - this is why he is being chastised.

Nick has made it quite clear he wants to get to the final and used his opportunity to do so. He also stuck to his guns when questioned about it, giving, what I consider to be a valid response.

The discussion taking place was focused on Jack's selfishness in using prize money for his own personal gain and the remark made in that context and no other watch the video it is plain to see. There were no qualifications put upon which such actions would be acceptable only that it was unacceptable.

I am not sure why thre is any issue here? Jack used some of the prize fund for personal items, items that wouldn't affect his place and would be available outside afterwards, it is clear that Nick was saying he wouldn't use the funds for that, he made no qualification but it is clear that, that was what he referred to. So when he found himself with opportunity to buy immunity, he took it. As that directly affects his time in the house and is not something that can wait til outside. There was no contradiction at all !

Jack definitely deserves criticism for a very selfish decision one completely different to that made by Nick. The key difference is that Nick's decison was part of the game whereas Jacks was not.

This.
Also, Jack did a complete U turn when it backfired on him! He deserves the stick he's getting because he's a weasel. Granted, not everybody will agree with Nick's choice but I think that he was presented with an opportunity for him to affect his time in the house and he took it and used it as it should have been.

Jack was using the prize fund for a cheap joke.

That made me laugh. I feel a bit that way too.

It says so much about that bunch of scheming, hypocritical, petty dullards that Jack has become a shining albeit manky dressing-gowned beacon of light!

Everybody focused on Jack's perceived greed/mischief {you choose which} whilst excusing the same from both Joel and not so thick Nick.
We are all watching the same thing the battle of the vicious vs the viscous.

It was a funny joke and I'm disappointed he withdrew his bid. I really wanted to see the 'cheap blazer and trousers' BB found for him. A missed opportunity for mirth if ever there was one.

To suggest that Nick buying himself a place in the final is more dignifed than Jack wanting a football score, juice and some new duds for a laugh is truly comical.

What possible dignity is there in buying a place in the final? Surely anyone who really loves BB and whose dream it was to be in the final would want to be there by default, rather than design? But then, it's typical of spineless Nick who comes across as someone who has never put real, genuine effort into anything meaningful in his spoiled, pampered life.

The difference is, Joel didn't truly believe that it was going to happen. He was the first one to do it and the way he dealt with it was funny. Jack backtracked and was copying Joel to try and get a laugh. When he didn't, he backtracked. He's a weasel.

Nick is a different circumstance.

It's hilarious isn't it. That resting sad face he has () has me almost powerless in supporting him. Then when his cheeks burn bright red () I'm like putty in his hands

Thanks for reinforcing my point.
Everybody has an excuse except JACK! Feel the irony.

If Joel didn't believe he was making a deal why did he feel the need to go back to the housemates and lie about it?
He knew exactly what he was doing both in and out of the diary room yet remains un-chastised for his behaviour.

Haha, really funny.

What can we do? We're helpless in the grip of Jackness.


Feeling it big time. It would almost be funny were it not so self-servingly hypocritical and so transparently anti-Jack.

The real irony is that if we're throwing 'weasely' about, then what could be more weasely than Joel's 'economical with the actualité" explanation of how he ended up sepnding £2.5k on a pizza.