Perfectly rational explanation. Unfortunately all rationality of that incident has been drowned by hysteria. John will forever be remembered for 'bullying' Tiffany and nothing will change that.

I thought she said it before the start of that conversation but maybe not. Did your transcript cover the bit in the bathroom? It has been suggested John disassociated himself from the collective decision. I don't think he did. My recollection is that he confirmed or WTE that those outside thought she should go and when she asked him what he wanted her to do he said something like he wanted her to do the right thing. I don't recall him saying he wasn't party to the house view.

I believe your recollection is correct. It's here if you want to read it.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...php?p=81074153

Thanks.

I just don't find him genuine.

And then pretended to be on her side and blamed everyone else!
As Megan rightly "said " when she had her brilliant rant

Yes EXACTLY

AND

He is sinister. He said to David after megangate "I haven't started having my fun yet". And I thought ...he means ...he is going to have fun trying to turn the house against Gemma who he was scared of as he knew she saw through him and supported Megan !

And he tried to do exactly that! Booooo!

I don't hate John but I can't say that I like him either. It has nothing to do with the Darren nomination either. Its because he led the group in trying to ostracise Tiffany during the whole David is dead incident. The way he ran to tell her no one wants her in the house came over as spiteful. As that wasn't enough he then said that the HMS must tell BB either Tiffany goes or they will walk out to force the issue.

I had pretty much gotten over that and began to feel sorry for John thanks to Gemma but then he embarrassed Stephanie with the whole pigeon poop/ dirty knickers. I think he prides himself as being mature person so I don't understand why he had to make such a big deal out of it.

I don't think John meant any harm over knicker-gate, all the lads, Darren, Chris and John were having a laugh about it, immature and silly yes, but not nasty or vindictive and nothing meant by it! I think that it got out of hand with the bitchiness from the girls, Daniella, Gemma and Megan. The only thing John done wrong was to go and tell the others in the bedroom and yes that was bad judgement!

I don't think John bullied Tiffany at all!

Thank you.
By evidence , if John is talented it's moderate at best.
He isn't that bright, Tiffany has him sussed, even Darren and Megan saw through him pretty quick. He's less stupid than scotty and Stepahnie but I don't think that can be seen as evidence of him being very intelligent.
I have not seen him be amusing , not once
I am sure he can be caring, I don't know anyone who can't be, but in general he's not at all caring in that house.
There is no evidence he would sincerely admit flaws as he has clearly denied flaws that we have seen, he has blatantly lied in order to present himself as more decent than he is.
He's nasty to people he looks down on, I take it that is what you mean by not taking fools gladly, I don't think that's a nice quality anyway. Why do you?
Is he a funny gay diva? Is that an admirable quality? He's a sneering pompous man. I don't see it as anything to include on a list of his positive attributes
He has a personality, we all do. Most people are finding Johns personality repellant.

Earlier you said

Now you admit you liked him before.

I didn't know of him before so I am just judging what he is in the house
It appears to me that you liked his character in EE and you like him. That's it. So whatever he does you see in a positive way because you had prejudged him favourably
Which makes a mockery of you post claiming others where jumping on him and are blinded by hatred. That's a silly unsupported claim.
You're the one with the motivation to be blinded, but by adoration.
Case closed M'lud.

It was nasty and harmful and he fully intended it to be.
He then sat and told bare face lies to Tiffany when she quite correctly called him on it.

"Do you really think I would do that to a young girl?"
Said with incredulity and much gurning.

Well yes, John, we know you did. And you tried denying it because you knew what a horrible thing you did.

No he didn't.

He calmed down and suggested he'd get her some dinner. Megan was hacked off because she said he did it to 'look good' or something.

It's all crap.

I remember also that John acted as 'spokesman' for the others who were outraged and scared. I think he was mightily pissed off, but scared? No, he 'took charge', that's all.

And he made up with Tiff in a very adult and successful way the next day.

And Tiff was bloody awful in that incident, everyone was hacked off with her.

I like Tiff and John, I don't know why people are so 'hung up' about John. He's a bit arrogant, takes 'charge' a bit, that's both his nature and his 'role' in a lot of his real life I suspect, but all this .....oooh he's so devilishly evil and his eyebrows are lethal is just ridiculous.

As for the knickers thing, he was childish and insensitive. But he's been in a thousand dressing rooms and seen far worse - it was probably ordinary, bitchy silliness, which he didn't think hard about and didn't take seriously, and he hadn't a clue whose they were. Few came out of that well, singling out John is just another example of him being targetted as some 'grand evil mastermind', which I just can't take seriously.

Of course I knew John before he entered the house, I watched him on Eastenders, I saw him on the Over the Rainbow Show Steph was on. He's made other guest appearances on other shows, I saw him when I went to see Cats.

I've never said I was a groupie or what ever they're called these days.

I have an opinion of him and yes he does have faults, he wouldn't be human if he didn't. But I am not blinded by his faults, like some.

John let himself down badly when he nommed Darren with such a silly reason but to give him some credit at least he has stood up to GC on occasion.

He's not top of my dislike list but he hasn't done very much to make me actually like him.

I don't hate John or anyone else in there. But I think it's precisely for all the reasons you cite , his maturity , his taking charge and his "role" that has partly caused the dilemma over who John is precisely.
I'm ignoring the tiff thing as I don't blame him for that .
However I'm still baffled by his nomming of Darren and his reasons, and knicker gate . These 2 events would have not been so commented upon if he had not set himself up as you pointed out as a mature older wise role model in there. He has dissapointed me.

Yes I think disappointment sums it up really. He has the maturity and capability to be a good housemate but on occasions has acted in rather inexplicable ways that has let him down.

For what it's worth I think his nomming of Darren was high handed but from good motives and not gameplay at all. Darren went from smoke free for eighteen months to chuffing thirty a day and we'd seen John reassuring him twice. We also saw John and Kristina expressing concern about him.

As for the knicker thing, sometimes his silly theatre backroom bitch reemerges as a blast from his past. He's a person, like all of us, most of the time he acts as a perfectly sensible, reasonable and kind, if a bit theatrical, man, sometimes acts like a dick. I don't like all of it, but I don't find it difficult to understand.

I didn't know anything about John before he entered the house and mostly agree with Skyrah's summing up.

Megan blew that apart during her meltdown. It was John who tried to convince everyone else to threaten a walkout if Tiffany wasn't removed. He played both sides.

I dislike John because he is petty, manipulative, and controlling. Nomming Darren, knicker-gate, and his plans to fool the GP (see his conversations with Darren in the first couple days) are his major wrongs.

And she's a reliable source because?

She had an axe to grind with John, she may have twisted or embellished things to make him look bad. Especially in the heat of the moment during that almighty meltdown.

I don't think she was lying. Her delivery was atrocious, but she didn't seem to be making it up.

Her main problem seemed to be that she wasn't get enough attention.


On Bots, before she realised what 'line' she had to toe, Megan said she had misunderstood John, he was alright, just a middle aged man and a bit theatrical.

They didn't want to hear that.

That's fair enough, I like those qualities that John has too. It's the duplicity in how he presents himself to the other housemates that irks. I don't think he's being genuine (not that many of them are) - and I wonder whether his public reception would have been more positive if he wasn't still struggling with some stuff in his personal life. He seems a bit preoccupied and not his bubbly self, the version of John we've seen on BOTS/other TV appearances.

iirc he was the first to say 'She needs to go'.