......get over it.

The Darren nomination and saying Tiffany should go, it was 2 weeks ago, why is he still being punished for it ?

From what i have seen, all HM's have made mistakes, some HM's continue to make mistakes. Since the Tiffany moment, John has done nothing wrong at all, so why is he still so disliked by so many people ?

He's not causing arguments or as controlling as some are saying ( Gemma is clearly the controlling one in there ). He has actually given out some good advise at times too. It's like no matter what he does now, he is being criticised for it, he can't win with some people.

Because Gemma and Tiffany don't want it forgotten, it is how the control the HM's and indeed those of the GBP who cannot see what they are up to. Shame, was really warming to Tiffany.

Yesterday John's odds to win were getting better but today they are drifting again. Clearly some people are listening to the 2 witches instead of judging for themselves. I despair, I really do. Tiff now 2nd favourite and Gemma's odds shortening too.

I thought Tiffany was better than this. It's clear to see that a lot of these HM's are really stupid if they hang on to the word of someone like Gemma.

I am judging for myself. I haven't liked John since the night in the diary room where he did that awful insincere performance about winstons views on gay adoption

He's cold, smug, arrogant, pompous selfish and self indulgent.
He's a terrible actor and dreadful luvvie.
Gemma is a horrible, horrible creature, I can't bear Tiffany, I loathe Steph, can't abide Megan I think Darren should stop being such a pathetic morose victim and that Christopher is as wet and thick as soup BUT none of that takes away that johns a very nasty guy , in my opinion of course.

And it seems that some FMs need to "get over" the fact that others don't agree with their opinion and perhaps see things without bias.

Consider that if you can bear to acknowledge it may be valid.

lots of people are used to being the one in control in all walks of life would take a while to adjust none of them are used to living with so many people

good luck with that re bias lol

I will acknowledge your post and say you are being quite patronising to another FM. Now I find that to be more valid.

what i have noticed is whatever happens in the house fm say its either john or gemmas fault and no one else in the house have a mind if these two are that clever one of them should win people say they are the most controling imo steff is the most controling and jez is the most controled

Thanks Reader - I won't lower myself to reply to her.

Eh? Just making a mocking remark is pointless (and transparent) when it has no point, do you see? The lack of bias is clear, unless you care to demonstrate to the contrary?

I don't think you understand despite your claim to acknowledge. Im not being patronising, I'm explaining why the claim made by the FM was patently wrong.
I don't think I can be swayed by what you think is valid due to lack of comprehension.

You can't respond without acknowledging that you were wrong.
Nothing to do with lowering yourself pet

Well said. I agree with you on all the above. I'm not sure why any criticism of a HM is taken in such an extreme way by some posters. Does criticism of John automatically mean that we must all be listening to Gemma or Danielle's opinions? Of course not.

The first red flag for me was, like you, his performanceover Winston's homophobia. More recently, his speech over Gemma making him cry, while he'd never cried over his dad's death or his mother's Illness, yet he can make a judgement about Darren's stability in the house. He's set himself up as the house's font of all wisdom. He's a bit like James Jordan was in his year, trying to 'help' people (mostly Gary Busy) by telling them things for their own good.

Having said that, he's not my most disliked HM at all. TBH, I don't really like any of them that much.

That's just not true , the forum is full of complaints about Tiffany, Stephanie, Angie, Jeremy and others that have zero connection to gemma and John, this sort of generalisation is just silly and shows a level of bias that makes it difficult to hold a balanced debate. So I won't bother you further.

The longer this has gone on the less I like any of them.

And yes, I agree about johns performances.
His claim that Gemma had affected him more than his fathers death or mothers illness really does him no favours.
And that doesn't mean I'm judging him unfavourably compared to others, the others are awful too.

agreed

That was the FM opinion and one they are entitled to give one on this forum.

I also have absolutely no need to try to sway your way of thinking whether you comprehend or not.

Aww no problem jean and I agree with you.

Really disappointed in Tiffany I thought she was more intelegent than this I'm going right off her.They all need to get over what happened two weeks ago and open their eyes to what Queen bitch Gemma is doing and getting way with.Its so annoying.

He didn't claim anything like that.

Saying that he didn't cry at his father's funeral, while he'd cried over Gemma's treatment of him is an entirely different thing.

Johns a bit of a mystery to me. I've liked him and disliked him in equal measure.
I thought the " I didn't cry at my fathers funeral " quite bizarre actually. And made me highly sceptical . But on occasion he seems quite caring and concerned . Confused

You clearly are struggling with difference between an opinion and a fact.
To clarify, its a fact that the FMs stated remarks were wrong.

Nope, that's the very clear implication, but I accept you don't see that.
No bother,

I personally think he is a bit over dramatic about things, maybe that is because he has been an actor his whole life, but i don't think he is a bad guy like many people make him out to be. BBBOTS and the eviction audience especially think he is bad. I just find it odd that they find him worse than some of the others in there when they are proving themselves to be a lot worse than him.

He didn't SAY, his 'father's death', he said 'at his father's funeral'. He meant 'in public'.

Don't twist it to suit your purposes.

As for the Winston thing, AGAIN, I will explain how this can be read completely differently.

When he first heard it he was a bit shocked but MAY have wanted Winston to have the chance to explain and retract the 'abuse' part of the speech. He didn't want to immediately 'go off on one'.

I felt similarly when I heard it.

This did not happen, and when John was clear about his attitude he THEN let his real anger show, and his misery about that sort of attitude.

Perfectly understandable.

There's nothing unusual about him not crying at his father's funeral. It doesn't mean he wasn't devastated, grieve etc.