I tend to believe you, and weymel is backing you up from another source and Tommys brother was here a while ago.

I suppose Tracey and Caroline couldnt take Tommy either if they had won.

There was a lot on the show I didnt understand (like their final votes). and it was a surprise to me that some people had become close cos we never saw them talking (like Caroline & James)

I think so much arguing happened etc that they focused on that and it meant Shaneen, James, and Caroline were hardly shown after a while. Not that I dont want to miss the arguments but I reckon so much happened that a lot of stuff for the big picture was edited out

But its bad news if they actually fiddled the final votes.

but not that surprising, really

Very disappointing if they did.
They cannot do it on the real show as it would be a crime-fraud-with all the money being involved-hence the independent checkers but I guess they can get away with it with the teen format.
I did find it extremely odd that they picked on James at the time-it is just not consistent with the way they run the normal summer show.
Maybe there will be hell to pay-oh or maybe not they could have just not shown it-or maybe it is the good publicity or wah......

yeah we are talking about a £30,000 holiday.

A part of me finds it hard to believe but if Tracey voted Paul then theres something askew. I thought she voted Tommy but Paul got 3 votes, Caroline 2, and Tracey 1 so that means Jade and Tommy got 0 votes.

she wanted to vote for tommy but couldnt, the same as paul wanted to vote for jade, its all very cloak and dagger, but whats done is done, and I just hope paul and caroline can get on enough to have a nice time.

Very unfair to say the least, especially if it was open to a public vote I think Tommy would have won.
But it really is not surprising if you take all the other BB's into account. With every Big Brother I would not be at all surprised if they had chosen who they wanted to win before that person even stepped into the house. And how they do this, using disqualifications or manipulated editing and the media to engineer the result they want is unfair and just produces an inferior programme to the ones we would have been able to see.

they always say they use an indipendant judge to count the phone votes for BB, but how do we know that really, unless one of us are actually there they could say anything.

I hate to have to ask.....I love conspiricies as much as anyone else..but is there actually any proof that Jade and Tommy couldn't be voted for?

Why did they all think Paul was going to pick Jade if they all knew she couldn't go for example? As much as I want to believe everything I hear there is a shadow of doubt surely.....

They were all called into the diary room except for Jade and Tommy, they were told then what the prize was and that they werent to vote for Tommy and Jade for what they had done in the house, they werent to tell either of them what had been said in the diary room, they were also NOT told that the winner could take a housemate with them, when Paul won he wanted to take Jade as she was his best mate in there, but they told him he couldnt, him and tracey hated each other so she was out of the question, tommy and James were disqualified so only left Caroline, All this has come from the housemates, not just one of them, but all of them. It is very difficult to believe of course, but its over now so I think they just want to forget about it, they certainly dont hold any grudges towards Paul at all, he was a worthy winner, its just a shame he had to go with someone he didnt really want to take.

I'm proud of you Mes, at last someone asking for proof.

Quite. I'm astounded that so many people on this forum appear to have been sucked in by the mad ramblings of a couple people claiming to be members of the contestants' families. I suggest they ought to take their 'fix' stories to the national papers, if there be any truth in the allegations, which I doubt. In fact, the only thread, as far as I can tell, that dared to question the credibility of these bizarre claims, has been removed. I'm also surprised that the DS moderators allow these defamatory posts to continue with such incessancy. Really.

Well you can stop reading the thread then. No point reading a thread based on the posts of 2 people you dont believe.

We were told about Tommy falling out a window pretty much just after it happened. Its a silly story to tell if it turns out not to be true. The papers arent interested enough in the BB Teens IMHO. Maybe their age has something to do with it too.

Originally posted by Goodfella
Well you can stop reading the thread then. No point reading a thread based on the posts of 2 people you dont believe.

LOL, how absurb as to suggest I should only read things which I believe!

We were told about Tommy falling out a window pretty much just after it happened. Its a silly story to tell if it turns out not to be true. The papers arent interested enough in the BB Teens IMHO. Maybe their age has something to do with it too. [/quote]

Firstly, I'm not interested in whether these people are who they claim to be. I really couldn't give a flying fig who they are. Nor am I suggesting that the papers would be interested in Tommy falling out a window - let's face it, as far as the tabloids are concerned, the contestants are already past their sell-by date. What they would be interested in, however, should there be any credence in the postings of the two friends/family members, is the fixing allegations. I'd be interested to know whether either of these two posters has approached the nationals.

Firstly, I'm not interested in whether these people are who they claim to be. I really couldn't give a flying fig who they are. Nor am I suggesting that the papers would be interested in Tommy falling out a window - let's face it, as far as the tabloids are concerned, the contestants are already past their sell-by date. What they would be interested in, however, should there be any credence in the postings of the two friends/family members, is the fixing allegations. I'd be interested to know whether either of these two posters has approached the nationals. [/quote]

If these people know the contestants closely, then the whole point of reading their posts is that that they are telling us info we dont know and telling us inside info, not opinion like we all post.

IMHO, its better having them around and giving them the benefit of the doubt because it makes the forum far more interesting rather than us lot arguing with each other on our opinions. We are actually learning inside info rather than the usual (if its true).

But IMHO posters like you and Bystander would make me not even bother posting if I had info because theres always 1 or 2 or 5 around who take scepticism to new depths. They already stopped visiting the Newsgroup because of the attitude there.

Originally posted by yidaho
Firstly, I'm not interested in whether these people are who they claim to be. I really couldn't give a flying fig who they are. Nor am I suggesting that the papers would be interested in Tommy falling out a window - let's face it, as far as the tabloids are concerned, the contestants are already past their sell-by date. What they would be interested in, however, should there be any credence in the postings of the two friends/family members, is the fixing allegations. I'd be interested to know whether either of these two posters has approached the nationals. [/quote]

Originally posted by Goodfella
If these people know the contestants closely, then the whole point of reading their posts is that that they are telling us info we dont know and telling us inside info, not opinion like we all post.

IMHO, its better having them around and giving them the benefit of the doubt because it makes the forum far more interesting rather than us lot arguing with each other on our opinions. We are actually learning inside info rather than the usual (if its true).

So it's wrong of me to question the validity of their posts? Is that what you are suggesting?

But IMHO posters like you and Bystander would make me not even bother posting if I had info because theres always 1 or 2 or 5 around who take scepticism to new depths.

"scepticism to new depths"??

I simply expressed surprise that no-one, before now, had taken an opportunity to query their rather astounding 'fix' allegations. We are, after all, talking about a large national television corporation and programme production company.

They already stopped visiting the Newsgroup because of the attitude there.

Did you visit the newsgroup to read Reformat's posts?

It's a bit too much to take on blind faith alone.......I'd love to believe it but I just can't on the basis of hearsay......

well whatever.

I dont think anyone is taking what they say as the total truth but if we just knock and trash them then I would be surprised if they stayed around. The ;longer they stay, the more insight we get (IMHO)

I agree they havent been too cool in a few posts they have done regarding the newsgroup but they didnt seem to like it there either.

Anyway Ive said my piece. If Weymel and End1 stop posting, here endeth the interest in the thread. We can be certain if those 2 left then we will definitely be left with opinions only and nothing else.

I dont think anyone is taking it as the gospel truth. But it could well be true (in my opinion theres a good chance) and its better than the usual post-BB posts which are most definitely 100% opinion.

Why knock them ? its better to have them around than not have them around IMHO.

Who says I'm knocking them? No need to be so defensive...I'm just saying that there is no evidence and I think a bit of evidence is needed to back this story up........I think that's fair enough don't you.....I think there is too much here to take on blind faith.....

End1 accurately told us of some of the events that had taken place inside the House, before the show was screened.

Yidaho - Is it possible to have a link to this site either on this thread or by pm? Thanks.

~shrugs~ Any other poster who pulled that newsgroup stunt would have gotten it hot and tight. That was just deliberate troublemaking.

Even so...it doesn't mean that this story is true.......I have a doubts..sorry.

well your original post brought forth some new info so Im grateful for that. If they are talking then I think its best to just let them talk.

I suppose it looked slightly different when Bystander was patting you on the back and pumping up your post a bit.

Your original post was fair enough but Bystander put you in a certain postition and your reply was a bit smug IMHO (who is taking it in "blind faith" etc?)

If someone is talking and it could be plausible, I think its better to let them keep talking until it becomses obvious they are not who they claim to be. I think thats how most here were treating the info.

no offence meant tho.

I dont know what you mean Edna