Imho Austin is an attention seeking pillock.....

Why though? Most people have their own pain and losses to deal with it, it's not fair expect them to indulge/involve themselves in others especially if they didn't know the person at all.

While I believe in different strokes for different folks, I can't see why having 10 random strangers honor your late brother is so important.

And another thing.....
I don't think Austin was in any way offended that Chloe didn't turn up - he just saw it as an opportunity to attack her.

You don't need to know someone to show some compassion.
I think having your own pain and loss to deal with would make me more inclined to empathise and make the effort to show my support.

But like you say, different strokes and all that

I agree, but just because someone doesn't want to participate doesn't mean they're not compassionate. Death and mourning is psychologically rough and even little impromptu memorial speeches like Austin's can take people to dark places, i totally understand if some people want to avoid that at all costs.

I lost my mum in 2013 after a painful battle with cancer, even now I'm angry and depressed about it but I think it's unfair to pull others into my grief and mourning.

Optional but she was selfish and disrespectful.

But she's that way in all she does in the House.

The real issue wasnt that she didnt attend but the reason she gave which was a blatant lie - she is more than happy to be around alcohol as we have seen many times - the only time she said she wasnt was at his brothers moment! If she didnt want to attend that would be fine but not giving an honest reason was what set him off.

I agree.
Plus I don't like talking about it to people I don't know to well. Each to there own.

Does it matter what reason she gives or if it is a lie or even an insult. What right has he to declare some sort of memorial service for someone none of them know and probably that they suspect is purely for self promotional purposes and then demand excuses for non attendance.

I have to agree.

Well given that every other hm without exception - including her very own partner attended - and she gave a false excuse why she did not - it does make her standout somewhat don't you think?

IMHO she should never have been questioned on it at all.

Almost everyone involved in that row did the wrong thing for the right reasons.

Austin wasn't just angry about Chloe's non-attendance at the memorial speech, he was angry because she's made a number of mistakes in the house and doesn't take responsibility for her actions (instead, she apologises and then *continues* to make the same mistakes). The memorial was the 'icing on the cake', so to speak, and when she took the alcohol from the fridge, he lost all patience with her.

He could have taken her to one side and confronted her in a quiet way, but he chose to do it in front of the entire house. Chloe employed her usual defences (baby voice, impotent anger, fake tears), but these didn't wash with someone as savvy as Austin, and he pulled her excuses to pieces at a stroke. The interventions by Bobby and Janice made the situation MUCH worse than it needed to be. Had they kept out of it, Austin and Chloe would have had a heated exchange, both of them would have gone away and sulked for a bit, and then they would have gotten together and talked it out and hugged. End of story.

Like I said, they all did the wrong things, but for the right reasons.

She should never have been asked why she wasn't there because it's none of his business. She did nothing to disrespect him or his dead brother and he should just STFU.

Valid point !!!

Precisely. He's just attention seeking. There was a thread on here previously which questioned Austin's motives for making that big toast, and loads of people were going 'shame on you guys for questioning it'. I'm sorry but everything Austin has done since entering the house has been to suck up to the British audience. He's bitched incessantly, and has been a repulsive character. He's literally screaming at Chloe because she didn't go outside to raise a glass to somebody she doesn't know? So yes, I think his toast was akin to someone auditioning on the X factor and saying it's for their dead mother - a calculated, attention seeking move.

After his *cough* 'empathy' fiasco with Gail I just thought what an a-hole..it's just trying to appropriate someone else's suffering to his own ends hoping no one spots the deception. I believe his '*cough* 'grief' over his brother was just more of the same and I find it truly sickening.

I understand anyone not wanting to believe this as most would find it inconceivable for anyone to stoop so low. ...................

Of course it was optional. Chloe could've put 2 fingers up to it had she wished to do so.... That said, who on here would have missed it? I certainly wouldn't have. The fact the rest of them also went, showed common decency.

I clicked the wrong one, meant to vote Optional. But yes, of course it's optional and any suggestion that Chloe intended to disrespect Austin's late brother by not being there is ridiculous in my opinion.

I think it's optional but just say I don't want to go don't give a reason like I can't be around alcohol and then run in to get some for Stevi because that doesn't make sense to me

Totally agree with this.

Grief certainly may not be rare or unique, but it bloody feels like it. It makes no difference that many other people have lost loved ones prematurely, it's a hole that never goes away.

I'm extremely sympathetic to Chloe's addiction and how absolutely awful that is too. I don't think Austin was expecting her to be around alcohol if that's something she can't do in this stage of her recovery. I should imagine the whole house has respected Chloe's wishes and not waved a bottle of beer under her nose. Austin clearly respected this decision at the time.

What I think he had a problem with was how Chloe reacted on a different day, bounding off with cans in her hands quite merrily, getting the alcohol that her fiancé requested she get. All she had to do that day was sit down with Austin, tell him that she had problems being around open alcohol, but she would stand by the door with a glass of water, completely away from anyone. She could have made an effort with his grief, as all the other housemates I'm sure would have to make an effort in keeping alcohol away from her if she requests it.

Optional.
You have to give respect to gain respect.

This little gem of information seems to have passed him by.

And I have no problem with that. But imagining that Austin was using his brother's death for personal gain, with no evidence - let alone proof - to back up such a statement struck me as exceptionally hateful and unwarranted.


Posting such a perception in a public forum is going to get a reaction, some of it negative. If you think he's a knob, fair enough. But your comment ascribed horrendous motives to his behaviour that have no basis in fact. Speculate all you like, but if you're going to describe him as 'sickening' on the basis of nothing more than wishful thinking, then you can't be too surprised by my response.



It would only have been threatening and insulting if my comments had been unprovoked and unwarranted. Calling Austin names and speculating on his motivations is one thing, but your comment seemed especially ugly. To be fair, there are others on the forums who have since made similar comments, mostly by people who seem to detest Austin with an absolute vengeance and who take every opportunity to slag him off in the worst possible way.

There is no evidence Austin is using his dead brother, only speculation by people who think this is a worthy line of enquiry. It isn't.

I'll keep this brief.
Not long ago another (very witty) thread was pulled because a poster thought he had the right to dictate what was right and wrong in a thread.
No poster has that right...rightly or wrongly only the admin does.
It's unfair on everyone else when a thread gets pulled because someone descends to bickering.
Mine (and probably others) perception of Austin is borne from his activity in the house not from some homeless malice.

Everyone has their own reaction to grief and indeed perception of grief and how that affects them. I have 'lost' many people close to me and the last thing I would ever do is haul them out for 'public consumption'..............that in itself I find incredibly disrespectful............and what end would it serve? Certainly it wouldn't do them any good would it?