So I kind of know this is going to start a major row; but I also kind of don't care. In this year's BB I was lambasted and called obsessed and worse for trying to draw attention to the odds-on favourite's previous for assault. He still went on to win, as I knew he would. Vicky will win this too, she's a shoe-in, pun intended. But just last year she was firing stilettos around and scarring young women with them.

Yet we have a virtual brigade of people waxing lyrical about how lovely and sweet she is while they eviscerate someone for a bit of verbal jousting.

I don't get it; I really don't. Maybe someone could explain it to me?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-injured.html

I don't watch BB so no idea who you are talking about there.

And I'm sure I'm not the only viewer who had never heard of Vicky before either, so can only judge her on how she comes across in the jungle.

I don't - and won't - accept that argument. If you read something about someone you can't unread it and to say it doesn't colour your judgement of them is completely illogical. You can try to focus on what they're doing on the show they're currently appearing in; but you do recall what you read and it does colour your judgement.

Particularly when it comes to criminal records; I like to have as many verified facts as I can.

So, you think because someone got into a drunken fight in a nightclub once they should be banished from sight forever?

She wasn't even found guilty, unlike Cheryl Cole, and that hasn't stopped her becoming "the darling of Saturday night prime time", so I say good luck to the lass for trying to make something out of herself.

Yes she was found guilty

I don't think she should be banished from sight forever but neither do I expect people to fall for her portrayal as a sweet, smiley, butter-wouldn't-melt girl next door.

I've been drunk many times in my life but I've never once got involved in a violent incident and I never would.

I've about the same amount of regard for Cheryl as I have for Vicky by the way - and for the same reason.

Okay, my mistake, I misread "spared jail"

People who commit crimes ,whatever they are shouldnt be encouraged to shine on tv shows, If Lady C comments were seen as so bad.... how then can they have someone who hit a lovely young girl in the face with a shoe, just missing her eye.. shes just a ned who should never be on our screens.. Cheryl of course was forgiven too.

I expect most of the voting public aren't posting on here and probably won't know these people's backgrounds. I don't like these kind of winners which is why I switch off before any final and read up on it here.

Cheryl was forgiven because she is pretty, or was she's not looking too great at the moment, Vicky is the new breed of reality stars, like Charlotte Crosby. I hadn't heard of her before this show, but even if she was all sweetness I find her irritating.

Lady C is a mature female, she wouldn't be forgiven for anything. I found some of her rants funny in a panto villain way, especially her enema one, although I wouldn't want to live with her, but she was kind to those who she didn't feel were against her.

If Vicky has changed, good for her, but she doesn't entertain me.

The scar on the girls face might not have changed though.... shes just a lowlife..who deserves no praise.

Because it doesn't accord with your view?

I don't care about what gossip dredged up , but I completely respect that you do.

Vote Ferne!

Yes, but that ideology removes any possibility for rehabilitation and remorse.

I hope she doesnt win she is getting on my last nerve with her sickly sweetness and after reading about her assault she is worse than Lady C and that is saying something.

While her behaviour wasn't great, it also isn't worthy of a lifetime of condemnation or being labelled as violent. The article you linked says what happened quite clearly.

She got very drunk in a club, someone chucked ice at her, she threw her shoe at who she thought was responsible in return. She then took full responsibility for her drunken stupidity. It's not great behaviour, but I'd put it down to drunken stupidity more than anything else.

Me too , which is fake , two faced , probably the most desperate contestant ever on IAC to win the show , the over emphasised Geordie accent , the way ott commentary in the BT, the hideous faces she pulls like she's entering the world gurning championships , and that get on with everyone but bitch about them in the BT . That's judging her just how she comes in the jungle

No, because it doesn't accord with logic. You know from this thread that she hit two young women with a stiletto, scarring one of them permanently. You can't un-know that. It's there; whether you acknowledge it or not.

It's not worthy of a lifetime of condemnation, but it's certainly worthy of being labeled violent; because that's what she is.

I've often been very drunk - so often that I cringe enormously remembering my younger self - but I was never, ever, violent. That's either in your or it isn't.

I knew nothing of her prior to IAC and can only go on what I'm seeing of her in there. And for the most part, I like her although yes, I can see why she might also be getting on people's nerves. I don't see her as the winner though so not sure why you and others seem so sure that she has it in the bag.

If she's genuinely sorry and has since changed her ways, then she deserves to not have her past held against her, surely? Is she still prone to violent drunk attacks? Is she still aggressive? I don't know. Maybe someone more familiar with her can provide more up to date info.

But I agree with your main point re the rise in nasty, aggressive RTV winners. It's a baffling development.

She "was" violent in that one recorded minor incident. I don't think that is enough to label her as having a "lifetime of violent crime" or even as "a violent person".

so thats condones her actions, that she was drunk , and behaved like a chav, she took responsibility to keep her from prison..and admitted what shed done.Again the victim is forgotten.

What a non-thread. She committed one act of very minor violence when she had drunk too much. She offered full remorse for her actions and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. Why people think her whole life should be affected because of it is beyond me.

Ask the girl with the scar who got the stitches..

No, not "condones" - it "explains" the event.

And the victim got a wad of compo, and yes, aside from that the victim does get forgotten because the matter is over and done with and every one tends to move on and put it behind them.

Well of course there is a victim, but it was a very minor assault, hence the fact there was no prison time.

By the way, she 'may have a scar'.