Towards the end of live feed last night, John asks Tiffany who Stephanie had named, she reluctantly says Darren and Christopher as well as his name. He asks her why she hadn't confronted the other two in the same manner as she'd confronted him, she wasn't able to (within the timescale of live feed) answer that.

It is true that John was involved in the incident, also true that he went into the bedroom talking about it and spreading the word. It is further true that he denies 'doing that to a young girl' during his lengthy conversation with Tiffany, and it is once again true that John doesn't appear (on live feed or highlights) to have taken any of the blame when Stephanie was feeling humiliated and upset.

I don't think that John is everything that Tiffany accused him of - my first thought on watching live feed was that, for all her self-proclaimed acute powers of observation, she's obviously not been clever enough to observe these traits that she attributes to John, within her own dear friend Gemma! She wants to see them in John, so she looks out for them and puts everything down to his powerful scheming way, she's not wanting to see them in Gemma so she doesn't look for it.

The funny thing is with Tiffany, she's never around when anything is going on - how can she be observing these amazing powers of John's when she only hears things second-hand from other people.

I did enjoy the long (very very cut on highlights) conversation between her and John. John held his own and it seemed to me that Tiffany was scrabbling around for the next thing to accuse him of each time he saw off one item on her tick-list. They did it nice and calmly though, no shouting, no tantrum.

Tiffany does not edit the show. I don't think she needs any more coverage she is almost fav to win and tops every fav h/m poll I have seen.

It is interesting, thinking about it whilst typing on another thread, that Tiffany is so defensive of Stephanie and yet chose not to confront the rest of the housemates, tell them what she thought, but to simply do it with one housemate involved. If Tiffany is adamant that she wouldn't behave like that, that this incident should not go unresolved, why not stand before all the housemates and say her piece?

As far as I know Tiffany isn't privy to her standing in polls or with the bookies.

And she has absolutely no idea how it is being edited and what goes to air. She doesn't even know everything that is going on in the house in order to make an educated guess about what is most likely to make the cut.

Maybe because she has an agenda, an antipathy towards, bears a grudge against or is suspiscious about John. So to hear of some wrong doing on his part absolutely fits her expectations.

That's a really good point actually.
Tiffany pretended to be rushing to the defence of Steph but John is probably well down the list of people that Steph has a problem with in the house. Tiff's mate Gemma will be top of the list and the one causing upset to Steff so when are we going to see her confronting Gemma?

Oh I agree. She's looking for every step he may make that's out of place, whereas her 'acute' observation technique is completely missing all of Gemma's missteps.

As posted earlier - she started the day offering to sort out Steph for Gemma.

Very True Babel!! I'd completely forgotten about that!

I think it's a mixture of things with Tiff.

She doesn't go for Gemma:

Because Gemma has been nice to her.

Because Gemma is a favourite of BB.

Because Gemma has immunity.

Because Gemma doesn't work alone and has power. She always gathers people around her before 'confronting', and when she escalates she always has others or tries to to back her up.


Perhaps she thinks that will come later - she's admitted she doesn't trust Gemma, but she's not in a position to attack Gemma - yet.

Indeed she's 'sucking up' to Gemma, offering to 'step it up', in some way, as if to divert animosity from STEPH towards Gemma, into animosity towards JOHN.

John gets boos, John has no strong ally, and yet JOHN was top three too. And she can't figure out why - so she's assuming that John must 'be a playa'.

But he's nice, he's friendly, he looks after them and says decent things to them all -

Thus, for Tiff, he must be 'some evil mastermaster MIND', who does secret stuff in some weird way.

The knicker thing played into this - I thought he let himself down there, but it was interpreted by Tiff as 'lone hand playa tactics'.

And as Tiff 'works alone', As she thinks John does, it's much easier for her to go and confront him alone - she thinks she can win that one without looking like an hysterical diva (the mistake she made before). And John is a big man, not an old woman so if she goes off it does't matter so much.

It didn't really work out for her though - she revealed she's as arrogant as John, that she uses intimidation rather than charm, that she's a 'playa', and that, at heart, she's lonely and confused and lost, like John, and all of them in there perhaps.

All supposition of course.

I missed it last night, however, I think Tiff is just game playing and sees John as her main rival at the moment. She needs to eliminate the competition in order to be the last person standing.

I don't think it is double standards though because the situations wouldn't be identical or even similar. Tiff simply isn't anything like Gemma despite some desperately trying to compare them. Limiting this just to knicker gate which is only what I am talking about Tiff took her time over this and approached the instigator of this humiliation and she was right in who she picked and I think she has something with the arrogant and controlling accusations.

The others are just bit players in knicker gate. Chirs wanted to hide the knickers and John wouldn't let him, John took their existence to the rest of the House instigating and joining in with the humiliation, John said 'name and shame' and finally John outright lied when he said he wouldn't humiliate a young girl.

I think trying to blame Tiff for not spreading the blame is a way of lessening what John did. John is in the wrong here for what he did and he did a substantial amount.


Again I find it odd that Tiff is being centred on here negatively and can't help thinking it's a way of trying to lessen John's role and awful behaviour in all of this. Tiff hasn't done anything wrong here only John and some other HMs. As far as I'm concerned she tackled the ring leader in this situation and as she considers him to be controlling this is the exact issue she wanted to tackle. Why does she have to prove herself in some way by tackling every sinner in this situation She is one of the few that didn't join in and should be praised if anything.

I am not sure that is the case - she seemed pretty convinced he would be evicted. May be she sees him more as a block to her establishing a dominant position in the house.

She might have been defensive of Stephanie after missing out on knickergate but earlier in the day she offered to get Stephanie for Gemma. She was looking for camera opportunities that day and she knows Stephanie and John are the outsiders in the house and are getting booed outside, so they are the ones to go for. As it turned out she was able to use one to get at the other.

Her delivery is much improved though, tbf to her. It might have been a bit daft trying to paint John as Professor Moriarty (more like Arty Morty) but at least her play for attention this time was civil and not done to overpower and intimidate, unlike the screeching performance she treated everyone to after it turned out David Gest was not dead.

Trevor, the only thing wrong is that Tiff really thinks John is controlling the house, when he isn't and KNOWS he isn't. It's Gemma, ands it's massively obvious.

Or that she's 'playing' this to please Gemma, who she believes.

When maybe she knows exactly what's going on, but can't tackle Gemma and is using John for airtime.

Or biding her time.

John acted badly over knickergate, but as far as I can see, it wasn't 'planned' as some personal attack it was spontaneous, bitchy silliness, seen in dressing rooms in many productions, complete with outrageous outrage and laughing. Then dropped.

I know. On live feed she asked him to notice that she'd not shouted and she'd argued better - that she'd learned.

I thought it was endearing.

Tiffany is as big a stirred as Gemma, a bit cleverer but just as bad.

The thread's about Tiffany, so I was discussing her. I was actually questioning her behaviour, if that's seen as negative despite being what these forums are about (or at least one of the things they are about), then what's the point? John's behaviour most of us are agreed on, he behaved very badly when he chose to walk around making the dirty knickers an issue.

Within the knicker situation, no Tiffany did nothing wrong at all, she wasn't (apparently) even around when it all happened (where does she disappear to all the time?), was acting on second-hand information and seized the opportunity to confront John - not just about the knickers but about all of his behaviour. Watching on live feed we were all confused about how their lengthy discussion started, because not once were knickers mentioned (that we heard).

I think we all enjoyed their relatively civil discussion last night on live feed, because it WAS done in a relatively mature and grown-up fashion, with both of them seemingly understanding where the other came from. It was very interesting to watch.

Don't be fooled, Tiff isn't a bit concerned about knickergate or Steph - she wanted an opportunity to call John out so seized that one.

As was John

Oh yes, they barely talked about knickergate.

She didn't shit-stir, she took John to one side in a room with just the two of them to speak to him directly and in private.
In fact it could be described as an action which avoids the risk of shit-stirring.

I was pleased that Tiff managed it, but to be truthful, she was 'bubbling' more than a few times, and every time John reined her in, very skilfully, made her think. Great to watch, and she DID manage it.