All the interviews seemed meh! Issues that should have been addressed weren't and minor issues seem to be overly focused upon, it was a weird finale.

Why criticise jack who took money not from the prize kitty but applaud Chloe for taking her five grand when most of the viewers could see her hypocrisy?????

I think you could tell regardless of BBS agenda both Emma and Ryan preferred nick and Joel.

I agree with the general sense of what you're saying, but wasn't Jack's money subtracted from the prize, while Chloe's 5k was instead not added?

Did Emma tackle Chloe about how she carried on when she was nominated?

Why should he feel guilty or remorseful for winning the money?

So what if it was?

The last time it was as blatantly obvious that BB was directing misery at a particular HM, was when they did it with Siavash.......that poor bloke went through all sorts at the hands of BB, all because he stood up to them, ending up in Siavash being given the most ridiculous outfits to wear - which he did with great humour, and finally evicted in something ludicrous which was not his.

He went in there with the best of fashionable clothes which other HMs pounced on and wore, and BB treated him like trash.

I immediately thought of Siavash when I saw what happened with Jack, how shabby and spiteful.

Was he the one they put in a dress and high heeled shoes? That was disgusting.

I really don't think that Emma is too fussed with BB. And I can guess that all the accusations of 'bias' gets annoying for her, so I'm trying to work out why she is so biased not only in her questioning, but her whole body language and how she treats them. The most obvious ones are Nikki and Brian (Rylan interviewed him) compared to Helen Wood. But you could see the difference between Jack and Chloe too.

1) Does she simply favour housemates, and gives the ones she likes an easier ride, and grills the ones she doesn't like?

2) Is she so not fussed with the show that she is actually only half-informed (therefore didn't know about any behaviour from Nikki/Brian/Chloe that many might not have liked or thought that it was them who were mostly responsible) ?

3) Is she so swayed by the mob outside that she genuinely believes it reflects all of the GBP (everyone loves Nikki/Chloe and everyone hates Helen) that she just behaves accordingly thinking thats what we want to see? She did the same with Perez Hilton - he had a scathing interview (for being extroverted and running around in his pants?) yet was kissing Hopkins feet, even though we'd seen Hopkins mock and bully a few of the housemates 'for fun'

I don't know if its a bit of a mixture of all of them. But I do think she'd prefer not to be hassled about being biased, so someone should have a word and tell her she can put an end to most of the accusations by doing two things - watching the show well (ie not just knowing all the facts in the arguement, but the context of it and what factors led to it) and treating ALL the HM's exactly the same - she can opt to be the sweet, gentle interviewer or the harsh interrogator doesn't bother me, as long as she takes exactly the same approach with them all. It shouldn't be too difficult to do. I do quite like Emma generally speaking, and just can't understand why she behaves this way as I don't believe she cares enough about the show to be so desperate for one to win over the other and I think she might actually change it if meant she'd get less hassle on twitter. Someone just has to tell her to be more professional and neutral.

Semantic argument aside the answer is no. Both situations were where the money wasn't added to the prize fund (not that it makes much difference in real terms)

And the money itself wasn't the main issue. It was how Chloe treated Jack ( who was supposed to be her 'friend' ) that people got annoyed about.

Well indeed, that too.

Great post. Seeing it all laid bare like that makes me wish him all the best even more. I hope he enjoys every single penny of it.

Chloe couldn't have directly affected the prize fund, Nick had guessed she would choose not to take it, if he had been correct Nick would have determined whether he kept the money or added it to the prize fund (like Harry did with Jack's 5000).

I think if Jack hadn't taken the 21,000, then Cristian would have, but had both of them not taken it, I think it would have gone to the prize fund (assuming no one else decided to take it).

Yes, but the irony being that Nick in all likelihood based his decision on the constant barrage of guilt tripping and sanctimony coming from Chloe towards anyone daring to touch the cash, and to Nick in particular who had spent £5,000 swapping places with her for an eviction nomination.

Funny, innit?

Agreed, it seemed like Emma and everyone on BOTS were deliberately misrepresenting the entire argument they had with Chloe about the money, no one was criticizing her for taking the money, it was the hypocrisy of taking the money after lambasting anyone who took some of the money for their own purposes. She was still moaning about Jack not cutting up his dressing gown and Joel getting the pizza, even after she won the 5000. Not to mention the numerous mentions of Nick "stabbing her in the back".

It wasn't hard to understand and it was clearly expressed, I don't get why they kept framing it as Chloe got sitck for it and Jack didn't. Why would Jack? He was consistent throughout about the money.

Yes, she's quite the hypocrite. Even after she took 5000 pounds, she still zinged him every chance she got about "stabbing her in the back" and "putting a price tag on their friendship". Stabbing someone in the back is typically not done standing in front of you and the only way that would have affected their friendship is if she let it, then she'd be putting the price tag on their friendship.

Awesome Jenny!!!!!!!! Could not agree more! Least deserving winner ever. I wonder why?????????????

^ Every last bit of this. And Emma, despite seeing and knowing all the above, seemed to go out of her way to be the shitty icing on Jack's shitty cake, making sure his BB experience ended on the same sour, joyless, guilt-tripping note that so many of his fellow HM's created and delighted in over the last couple of weeks.

I'm so glad he has that £24k. I wish he'd walked away with twice that amount. It would still be small compensation for the nasty, petty, begrudging way he was treated both inside and outside the house.

Based on what we've discovered since, that in particular grinds my gears. I wonder if she would have sacrificed her Louboutin shoes to the high altar of team playing and cash building. What did she say about the pizza? She said that the £2,500 represents a car to her in her world......like the relatively new leather trimmed BMW she has bragged about owning on her instagram? I doubt the £2,500 would cover the alloy wheels and other extras on it.


Couldn't agree more. It was her doing a continuous audit on the cost and price of things, and it was her that was putting the price on friendships.

Realistically, despite her bitching about everyone else, she did very little of the sacrificing in those tasks. She kept her money bag held up the least amount of time (even though it didn't matter, she could have gone along with the team), she didn't have to make tough choices about receiving a call from home or sacrificing treats or buying her way into the final. And when she was the first one out with the money bags, no one but her knew it wouldn't affect the prize fund, and they were all gracious towards her.

The only time I can recall her having to make a choice between herself and the prize fund, she took the money, so where does she get the nerve to criticize others? Even last night on the main show and bots she brought up Joel's pizza and Jack's dressing gown. I guess she could have used that extra money to gas up her car.

Yes, his sense of entitlement. The sense that he was above being nominated. That's why he complained every time it happened, even when the person who nominated him was someone he didn't like.


He was definitely greedy too, but I didn't mind that so much.

His complaint was about the reasons, not about being nominated. That's why he complained about only some of the nominations.

I didn't say or imply there was any "so what" about it. But the post I was answering appeared to be factually incorrect, and I'd the arguments to be based on the truth rather than on a misunderstanding.

If it's "semantics", it's just as much "semantics" when Lou17 had it backwards.

No. Both were taken from the original £150k prize fund.

Sam - £5,000
Chloe - £5,000
Jack - £23, 900
= £33,900.
Balance £116, 100 which is what Chloe got.