To be fair at the end of what about 45 minutes I don't think any of us watching knew what the hell it was about apart from a few speculative guesses and that somehow Steph was involved

Ok then I am a bit confused You said something along the lines of 'Tiffany being so defensive of Stephanie and yet choosing not to confront the rest of the housemates and just confront one housemate involved'. This is a criticism of Tiff and it is about knicker gate and so that is why I said that I find it odd that Tiff is being centred on here negatively and that I feel it is about trying to lessen John's role and awful behaviour in all of this etc. I may be wrong but I think it's an apt and reasonable response.

I agree with everything Apart from the BIB This is what I posted elsewhere and I'll re-post it here as I think it fits: "I know Gemma is an over the top, bullying Diva with BB seemingly in her pocket but I don't think she actually has the HMs in her pocket and I don't think she fits Tiff's accusations to John IE a behind the scenes puppet master. That isn't what Gemma is and any accusations of this to would be silly. Tiff could approach her about just being nasty but it's not like people haven't levied that at Gemma already and it's not as if it is remotely a secret. However, the idea with John is that HMs, us even, aren't spotting his manipulation.

I actually think it's fascinating and give her all the kudos for challenging him on it particularly over knickergate where you can actually see it in operation if you care to see it that way. I'm not saying he is an arch manipulator as I'm really not sure about him but I can see how it can be viewed that way. "

But the point is Tiffany didn't see anything in this instance that could have lead to that conclusion. She wasn't there.

The thread title is 'Tiffany turning into Gemma' so really not about knickers I was discussing her in the greater realm of discussion, rather than just with regard to the one incident. My simplest answer to 'Tiffany turning into Gemma' is definitely not!

The bit you quoted from me - yes I am critical of the reasoning behind her choosing to defend Stephanie by approaching just John, rather than everybody involved (which is most of the house). I'm interested to know why people do one thing and not another.

Criticism is allowed, questioning is allowed, I even criticise and question housemates I do like (as in the case of Tiffany). Questioning isn't always criticism, although it can be, it can also be a part of being confused by a housemate.

We all want to figure her out, I think, because she is a bit of an enigma, as is John in many ways - which is why their discussion was son interesting!

Either way, whether I was criticising or questioning, I'm not apologising for participating

She is clever then We don't really know what she saw but we do know she talked to Steph and maybe others. The police aren't there when crimes are committed but still they resolve them and journalists aren't there when events occur bit still report on them and whilst I accept Tiff isn't Poirot or Woodward and Bernstein it is clear that you don't have to have a front row seat for an event to be able to understand and discuss it.

Ok that all seems fair enough but just a couple of things, I'm not and have never said you or anyone shouldn't criticise and certainly never suggested you have anything to apologise for, for joining in. Criticism is fine I was just giving my take on what that criticism might mean

Steph wasn't there during the initial stages either. One would hope the police given three suspects wouldn't simply opt for the one that happens to fit their own prejudice (or at least not too often) before acting as judge, jury and executioner.

I still think she just doesn't 'get' the booing for John and thinks he MUST be doing some 'deep' stuff. Tiff said he went around knowing how to fit in and get on with people, basically

(Interesting that this was also addressed by Jeremy, who in a recent vid, explains to Tiff that this is what you have to do).

I think viewing knickergate as evidence of deep puppetmastery is a bit amazing, as it was obviously bloody stupid, bitchy, spontaneous 'dressing room gossipy', and had no 'deep planning' and he had no idea whose they were anyway.

But Tiff needs SOME explanation for John's booing I suppose.

And I can see that for the oddly many who see John as 'evil' from some 'instinct' or personal antipathy COULD see it like that.

I don't think Tiff, in her bones, really thinks that of John either though, she's thrashing about.


Sorry, bit of a ramble, but Tiff is INTERESTING. I'm so bored of the one note, obvious cliches of most of the rest of them.

And Gemma bores me to DEATH.

I like Tiff but I agree with this, she was using the situation to her advantage. John is doing the same with Steph. They are both desperate to win and tbh I'd prefer if one of them won rather than Scotty Dog or Staphanie and the others. At least they will have worked for it.

As far as I know John is till alive

Anyway working with whatever limited info she had she actually hit the nail on the head. Maybe there were more conversations and events than we were shown but still we analyze ever detail and come to conclusions

No worries, peace

John was the only real suspect though because he was the one, the only one, who brought the matter to the attention of the whole house. Even if Tiffany was not there when this happened, which we do not know, she could easily have discovered this by questioning any of those who were there

I think they both thoroughly enjoyed a bit of verbal jousting, I doubt any of us would surprised if boredom was the biggest reason for this conversation. I think they relished the chance to go head-to-head, despite the circumstances surrounding it.

And in part apply our own prejudices

On a separate point I think part of Tiffany's confusion with John still being there may be down to Gemma. Watching her (Gemma's) plea to the audience last week I am still convinced she thinks it is a vote to evict "Vote for me I want to go home" or WTTE. If Gemma has explained her version of the rules to Tiffany, understandably she will be at a loss to understand how John can get the biggest booes and chants and still be there.

Yes I agree with most of this but I don't think Tiffany did herself any favours accusing John, I just think she finds him a massive threat of winning and she is just trying to make him look bad and cause trouble for him. I was very disappointed with her to be honest!

But that is exactly what Gemma is and she does have the housemates in her pocket.

Look at how they all caved in and gave her the bail from Jail card, and now the blow dry instead of hot water and accessories, she has lost control of Steph and Christopher but all the others are still well and truly embedded up her rear end. She gathers them around her, fires a few shots and waits for them to go and do her bidding. How is that not being manipulative and controlling?

Tiff even offered to go and sort out Steph for Gemma just yesterday. I think there is a lot in what Rhumbatugger says with regard to Tiff thinking that John's booing must be relative to things that John may have done which the house has not seen and I had not thought of it like that at all but it does make so much sense as to why she has it in for only John.

I do not think that John is a manipulator nor a controller, he is straightforward imo but I do think that he likes to take control in a situation (if that makes any sense) but being in control of a situation that arises is vastly different to trying to control people by manipulating them. I think that Tiff is getting too much credit where she is completely off target wth regard to John and his machinations and John is never given credit no matter what he does.

Good post (of course)

Bib - exactly this. I think ( taking the boos into account too) Tiff is confused by John's natural 'leader' trait in controlling situations and his sort of 'largeness' and personal power, and interpreted it all wrongly.

She is then LOOKING for stuff that confirms her theories.

But after Chris said "Let's just at least turn them over" (to hide the stain). John went on to say leave them on the Table and let's name and shame the person.
Lovely Guy!

Agree Pices and Rhum, John is a natural leader and controller and people do seem to follow him. I don't think it's something he does intentionally, I would imagine he doesn't realise he's doing it a lot of time.

Gemma on the other hand is actively trying to control everyone and is the real controller of the house.

He's just very charismatic and confident (arrogant sometimes) and he speaks with such conviction, even when he's wrong, that people tend to believe what he's saying.

I don't think people in the house particularly follow him, though, after the whole Darren and Tiffany things in the early days. There are far more people who beat to Gemma's drum than John's; wish Tiffany would see this.

I hope she can see she's beating to Gemma's drum herself.

I hope she's not too arrogant, herself, not to question why she's responding to Gemma and targetting John.

Sometimes I think she knows, sometimes I think she just doesn't see it or something.

Yeah momentarything, it's true that he doesn't have as many followers in the house now but I do think a lot of that's down to the fact that he seems to have stopped speaking up in group situations. I think he's learned his lesson from Megan's outburst that the person who speaks up normally gets hung out to dry even if they are just saying what everyone else is!

P381, Chris and Darren both went along with John - you can't blame one and not the other two. The three of them were like silly school boys but there was nothing nasty there.

I don't know, it seems to me that people are just saying John's controlling is ok because they like him but Gemma's is bad because they don't which of course I understand but I think it ignores the issue that Tiff and me a bit in my post(s) are getting at. If John is controlling the House then he is doing so subtly and the HMs aren't aware that they are jumping to his tune. He is a behind the scenes puppet master whereas Gemma is an in your face bully. Everyone is more than aware of her antics which lack all subtlety.

I'll say again the jury is out as far as I'm concerned about whether this is true about John but I totally believe Tiff brought it to John's attention after knicker gate because knickergate so aptly fitted the bill to describe this behaviour.

I really don't think she is. I think it comes from Megan if anyone as Gemma is too thick to see John's possible clever behind the scenes machinations. That is surely the point. Gemma just jumped on Megan's band wagon. Tiff may be as well but I really believe she thinks she has spotted something about him and has brought that to his attention in what turned out a much better way than Megan or Gemma could even dream of doing. I think she deserves respect for that alone.