I have to turn it off now. This is too sickening to watch.

I remember fondly the days when you could expect HMs like Craig to be disliked. There was a moral aspect to BB that was, in a way, reassuring.

Now BB seems morally corrupting.
Last edited by Veri : 07-06-2005 at 21:43

Meh. Craig will get what's coming to him. If not this time, soooon.

I don't expert him to win, but what more than that will happen?

He's right though.

Earlier on on the live feed, Craig was telling Derek how dignified he took him nomination last week, and Derek was actually praising him What about the bursting in to tears Craig?? What is he on?

V good post. People's sense of right and wrong seems to have become blurred. In previous BB's there have been housemates evicted by the public because it provided a fitting ending to a particular type of storyline (ie. the bad guy(or girl) getting their comeuppance). I don't think that will happen much this series.

I certainly remember those days. I thought that last year was, at times, excruciating to watch but with BB6 I find it so annoying I just often turn off.

Perhaps the Chav mentality has finally taken over the asylum. Either way it does make stomach churning viewing at times.

He'll be voted out and booed to f*ck, if not actually stoned.

But he's one of the most guilty of the things he complains about.

In the past, I'd have expected him to be found out by the other HMs or at least that the public would know what he's like and dislike his two-facedness and hypocrisy.

Vanessa's also getting away with things to a shocking extent. Even Lesley. Instead, it's the relatively harmless Sam who's getting ridiculed and slagged off in the press, with BBLB guests often against her, and so on.

And the HMs -- even after they found out that Lesley had hidden the case, and that the bedroom gang had lied, it doesn't even seem to raise their suspicions about other things coming out of Vanessa and Co -- such as Vanessa's lie about what her attempt to influence nominations amounted to.

Instead of wanting to see nasty types "get what they deserve", which was already questionably vindictive, the public seems to have developed a taste for seeing people suffer. Think of what happened with Natalie Appleton in I'm a Celebrity, for example.

The ones who cause suffering -- such as the gang picking on Sam -- are no longer the ones disliked.

(I know that in this forum, the older attitude still seems to be alive; but this forum seems to be an exception.)

Nice one Laughling Gnome, coudn't agree more! Get him to Falkirk!

Sorry, another thread from Moi!

How oh how can Craig Slate sam for being RUDE!!!!!!

I despise him ALMOST as much a lesley lard legs!

LMAO make 'em wear beat bullying bands, Sam would probably prefer a fake one, get my drift?

lol - he said "Sam called me camp!"

Well I never!

I agree with your every word here Veri.
Rewarding the ones causing distress as though they've done a good thing,..it just gives me an empty, deflated feeling.

Excellent post Veri.

Watching BB this year leaves a nasty taste. Yes we want entertainment and HMs who are prepared to speak their mind but this constant bitching, nastiness and argument for the sake of it is not entertaining.

FB

I'm finding it very uncomfortable to watch. It's not enjoyable.

I'm a Celebrity, on the other hand, was watchable, because, although the public was cruel to Natalie, the other celebs weren't. There weren't people in there trying to tear her down and break her spirit. If anything, they (most anyway) gave her support. So the implicit message from the show wasn't "we dislike her too, making her suffer is ok".

If BB had already been established as a game-player's show, like the American version seems to be, then fair enough: it would attract HMs who were good gamers and expected tricks, alliances, and deception; and people would watch it if they wanted to see something like that.

(Sam and Leslay would never be picked for such a show; Kemal, Makosi and Derek might.)

But in the UK we generally expected and wanted the winner to be morally deserving, so to speak. Not two-faced, false, back-stabbing, full of themselves, etc. We might disagree about whether the winners were deserving, but the ones who voted for them typically thought they were.

Now I wonder whether the public still thinks that way and whether BB is encouraging them to prefer cruelty instead.

he was saying tonight on the live show he's had sex with various women but I think he just wants to make himself appear interesting, he's a pr*ck.

I wish that contradiction could have been shown side by side on a HL show. First we'd see Craig talking to Derek about how well he took being nominated followed by a black and white flashback of him crying like a bitch from last week. That's one of the reasons why i prefer bb usa.

That eeevil Sam. I hear she called Derek black too.

I agree with all of you. I don't think that I have ever disliked so many people in the house. The production company has focused on confrontation, but in that process have forgotten about the fact that the winner has to be deserving, not some devious piece of dreck. Although I like some housemates, I would struggle to name a few who really deserve to win.

The 'Jungle Cats' were never this openly spiteful. Housemates can say whatever they like in the Diary room.

Misses the point. Good and bad are matters of perspective. Remarkably even when the show has a clear editorial line and most people agree on it large minorities see good as bad and vice versa. BB3 had two clear sides but both got votes. Jade got 1.4 million. In Bb5 some people actually thought Jason and Victor were pleasant people.

BB6 makes it even less clear cut. Unless you just vote for the nice white people, the HM are nearly all unpleasant or questuionable, The normal people are painted as complete thickos by the more intelligent people in the house - which looks harsh but is probably an accurate view. Their inability to communicate, threatening behaviour, lack of knowledge and obsession with sex and lip gloss hardly makes them look better than anyone else in the house. Anthony has a large chip on his shoulder about class and gays which drives his attacks on Derek. He may be as sexually confused as Craig. Saskia's rare tempers are worse than Lesley's and Sam has largely caused her own downfall. The fact hardly anyone likes Sam might tell you something. Meanwhile the house plotters are all arrogant and unpleasant in varying degrees and Roberto is a domineering character.

Set against that lot its difficult to see how the people you think are evil are actually any worse. Craig is clearly a confused mess, Lesley and Sam's behaviour has been pretty much identical. Lesley is more open with her feelings. Kemal, Makosi and Derek regard even more of the HM with contempt. Vanessa and Science are still the people with least negatives in there .

Judging that lot yet is unwise. In an ideal world someone would do something to look good and impress the public to win. Your good looks remarkably like other people's unpleasant.

So they really weren't? It's not just a matter of perspective after all?

It tells me something, but not what you seem to have in mind.

Perhaps it's difficult for you. Which is too bad. I had a lot of respect for you last year and always looked forward to reading your posts.

Science, yes; Vanessa, no.

Not even close.

No, it's necessary. Enjoying cruelty is wrong.

I've only managed to catch the highlights show this week, but last night noticed something that sums up a lot of people in BB6 so far this year: towards the end of the show Vanessa and Craig were in the loft and she confided in him that her parents don't know about her bisexuality. Craig made a pathetic attempt at empathasing for about ten seconds and then turned the conversation around to whether or not he'd be up for eviction again this week, whilst Vanessa just sat there looking p*ssed off at him. Complete "me, me, me" mentality from Craig again, although he's by far not the only one!

Sorry if others have posted this elsewhere - as I said, have only really had a chance to see the highlights this week.

I noticed on another thread a couple of days ago that you didn't see the events surrounding all that business with Sam and her bag.

So I don't see how you can come to such clear conclusions if you only believed it was a "joke", and only saw the snapshot presented to you on the 10 pm show.

Many people who saw the actual event unfold have not been seeing things in terms of good and evil as you imply they have.
Some people don't even like Sam that much, I think Veri is included. But they just saw what happened, and recognised that this was about cruelty and an appetite to create unecessary distress and suffering to another person.
It's not about "sides"...most people just saw it as one bunch of people doing something extremely cruel to another person.
In a situation like this it matters very little who those involved happen to be.

I don't care if most if not all of the people in there are unpleasant in some people's eyes. It doesn't suddenly justify the actions that occurred to me just because of who the particular people are.
To say that it's okay because they are all unpleasant people, sounds like you justify what happened to some extent, and that you would think it more important and make a difference if you actually liked certain people involved.
So they are all unpleasant people?...Makes no difference to me whatsoever.
It sounds to me that it's you who are making distinctions based on how good or bad the people are with that opinion which you offer about it not mattering because you feel they are all unpleasant anyway.

It doesn't matter to me who the people involved were. Even if it was Craig, who I can't stand, who was being bullied in such a sadistic manner, I would still feel sympathy for him and would still feel saddened by the whole situation.
In a situation like I saw, it doesn't matter who the actual people involved are,..it makes no difference to me at all.
It wouldn't justify it at all to me if I happened to dislike the person being bullied whoever that happened to be.

You are assuming that people who found the situation horrible are making some kind of distinctions between the people involved. From what I've been reading on the forum, in most cases I'd say that the opposite of that is true, and even people who don't like Sam found it an unpleasant, sickening situation.
I think it's something to do with basic compassion where the game itself, and who they liked or disliked, didn't matter to many viewers at that time.
Last edited by Alrightmate : 08-06-2005 at 12:55