I dont think you can say that the claim that Chloe was hypocritical is a statement of fact. It is clearly just an opinion.

All of the things that took money from the winner's prize could have been balanced by something that put the same amount (or more) back, so I don't understand why you think some of them were "obviously replaceable" and others "irreplaceable and taking directly from the winner."


I agree with you there.

One of the (many) things that has infuriated me the most this year has been those interviews and the bias behind them. The Nikki/Brian Bello interview in comparison to Helen Wood interview was just ridiculous as was the Chloe one in comparsion to Jacks.

As you've mentioned, apart from the bias, it shows shes not clearly in touch with the show. Its not very difficult to be fair. Firstly, you should know your stuff, know the context of the arguements/drama she is talking about. Then you take the SAME approach to both sides.

You can either be nice to the HM you're interviewing and let them give their side of the story - or challenge them with the alternative view. There were quite clearly two sides to Nikki/Brian and Helen.....one was the unacceptable namecalling, the other was the namecalling and context which led up to it. Same goes for the Chloe and Jack situation.

Emma/Rylan not only backed Brian/Nikki and left them unchallenged, but were very aggressive with Helen. And Emma used the same (incorrect) arguement to both Chloe and Jack which was slagging off Jack and defending Chloe. And thats before we even go into the general body language and approach she takes to the HM's. Unprofessional and unfair. They seem unaware that people at home may take a very different view to the rent-a-mob crowd.

It would actually make Emmas life a lot easier if she was fair, and its really not difficult to do, regardless of whether you want to be a hard interviewer or a soft one. Just treat them all the same.

Because the £5,000 x 2 & Jack's £23k were directly out of the prize fund, paid to those people, the prize fund would never go above £150k.

The silly spending was always replaceable as the money had not physically been paid out to anyone.

Sorry if I didn't explain it better before but to put it simply the 3 payments were irreplaceable, the rest was more like play money

This is true, but they did not to know that at the time.

Exactly. It was never about the money and whether she should have taken it or not. It was Chloes hypocrisy. And its not just the annoyance at her taking the money, when she had been going on at everyone else all week that it should be kept for the winner.

Its how she treated Jack for the whole week prior to taking the money. She had digs at him all week, insinuating he was selfish. This was not only hurtful to Jack, but of course it made him moany and irritable for being accused, thus showing his worst side. He had to take these digs from who he considered to be his 'friend' ....the person he had saved on 2 occasions - and after he had given up most things - from pizza, to football scores, to a call from his dad, trying to prove his worthiness to her..he watches her take the money without a second thought. I know if I was Jack, I'd be questioning why a friend would want to have a go at me so much, when it clearly wasn't to do with her obsession about the money pot. I'm not even sure if Jack thought back to his phonecall and realised that Chloe could quite easily have encouraged him to take it (as she knew he had no money). Why she didn't, is another mystery.

I don't think any less of a person for taking the money, or not - it is a gameshow. What Jack (and a lot of the viewers) didn't like was Chloes character - and how she treats her friends. Nothing to do with money.

I think she is genuinely thick.

I feel there was a difference between people TAKING money from the pot (for stupid reason) and Chloe and Sam not ADDING to the pot as individuals. They were not taking from the winner they were just not giving to the winner. Harry was offered £5000 but chose to give it to the winner.

And has lost interest in the show even though it has been her stepping-stone onto bigger and better things. I'm guessing she will host CBB this year and walk away from the show after that. If I am right please please please BB do NOT let Rylan host the main programme on live nights.

She's just a sheep dog taking orders from the Shepherd to round up the sheep.

Which is what she had been yakking on about all week.....................Chloe had already taken from the pot by being unable to stop wittering on despite being told clearly not to talk.............she was a major player in the money being lost from the prize fund, played merry hell all week about the money going back to the prize fund and then hypocritically pocketed the money she had a large part in losing...she, more than most should have put the money she helped lose back, she didn't though she took it and played emotional blackmail with the crocodile tears when someone simply mentioned her glaring hypocrisy....and when did she become the decider of what makes one persons choice 'stupid'?...isn't being unable to close your mouth and stay quiet as instructed pretty stupid?