[Vicky.]

In the diary room, saying its not about the task or anything, its people thinking 'why should they get something when I have had nothing' with a lot of them (mainly lateysha and jackson, from what I have seen...very bitter)

Its odd, as I understand that thinking too so I don't necessarily think they are wrong. But seeing it be made up to be about the house and the task and such rather than just...'they can't have anything else, they had a good night last night' was quite pathetic. I do, however, think this was the case for Jason as he has given up his dog also so clearly takes it seriously.

But I would have pushed the button for other housemates to have a good time.

As I have said over and over again, its only a bloody shopping task, they are pretty much redundant these days anyway

[Lostie!]

I didn't agree with him actually (and I've been on his side most of the time). I think any annoyance from other housemates about them seeing their boyfriends for the second night in a row is completely valid.

[Vicky.]

I'm not saying they were wrong to be thinking like that, just that he was correct in saying that thats what was underneath the decision, by at least a couple of them

Does seem a bit...'favouritism-y' but I really think thats down to the producers being desperate for some action after losing Marco (who was clearly cast for that) early on

[Lostie!]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I'm not saying they were wrong to be thinking like that, just that he was correct in saying that thats what was underneath the decision, by at least a couple of them

Does seem a bit...'favouritism-y' but I really think thats down to the producers being desperate for some action after losing Marco (who was clearly cast for that) early on

Oh yeah, I think his assessment was accurate, I just don't think he needed to be so sneery about it. It seemed (to me) like he was taking issue with the fact that they'd be annoyed when it's something I think is reasonable to be annoyed by.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Lostie!

I didn't agree with him actually (and I've been on his side most of the time). I think any annoyance from other housemates about them seeing their boyfriends for the second night in a row is completely valid.

I didn't either and I'm a fan of his. I couldn't help thinking that had the shoe been on the other foot...Andy would have a different take on it because he would have been pining for Ed.
I think he let himself down there...he has been fair minded up until now and I expected him to say "it's a personal disappointment but I totally understand where they are coming from"....

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

I didn't either and I'm a fan of his. I couldn't help thinking that had the shoe been on the other foot...Andy would have a different take on it because he would have been pining for Ed.
I think he let himself down there...he has been fair minded up until now and I expected him to say "it's a personal disappointment but I totally understand where they are coming from"....

he did say this though..

[Jack_]

I see both sides of it. If I were one of the other housemates and I'd not seen a loved one while those three had been given two nights of it, I'd be fuming...a bit like Jackson actually although hopefully not as extreme.

But then all of them pressing the button (including for the second time) made the right decisions. I've always said in tasks like these you owe no one anything and quite frankly I wouldn't give a flying **** about winning extra food on a luxury budget, I'd tell the rest of them beforehand that if I were presented with the opportunity to see a family member I'd be pressing the button/unfreezing myself straight away. It's a complete no brainer

[Pete.]

Of course Lateysha and Jackson are bitter can you blame them?

[Jordan.]

He'd have been the same had the roles been reversed.

[delta]

He lost his job at the BBC for a reason - he's a smug, self righteous pr!ck.

His self indulgent analysis was way off the mark, once again pontificating from his ivory tower. The hm's that made the decision for the task were actually torn, or at least 3 of them were, Jason seemed steadfast in his stance, but for good reasons.

They debated long and hard, which was noticeable by the comments of the housemates in the house and their comments " they've been ages...."

The whole frigging show is total boll0x - they are virtually acknowledging that the present crop of HM's are dire to watch. The production team appear to have thrown the towel in and are incapable of getting something out of this bunch that is worth watching. What's the answer? Bring some fresh blood in for a couple of nights, oh and the other is to axe the show weeks earlier that it should finish.

[Maru]

I need to go back and re-watch the scene. I tuned out once more because it's Andy dictating out loud what he thinks the group should do/feel/say in a situation. The world doesn't revolve around him and it's gone above and beyond.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Lostie!

Oh yeah, I think his assessment was accurate, I just don't think he needed to be so sneery about it. It seemed (to me) like he was taking issue with the fact that they'd be annoyed when it's something I think is reasonable to be annoyed by.

I should maybe add assessment to the title...think people are getting the wrong idea

[Amy Jade]

Of course people will be upset at him having two nights with his (hugely annoying) boyfriend when they haven't had a chance to see their loved ones and points quickly dwindling.

I think Jackson, Lateysha and Chelsea were justified to be annoyed at the fact 15 points had been wasted from the savings and they were hoping to see their kids. They weren't funny with Emma, Andy or Laura though which will have fumed Andy, he would have hoped he could play the victim again after one of them called him selfish.

[Adamw92]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

Of course people will be upset at him having two nights with his (hugely annoying) boyfriend when they haven't had a chance to see their loved ones and points quickly dwindling.

I think Jackson, Lateysha and Chelsea were justified to be annoyed at the fact 15 points had been wasted from the savings and they were hoping to see their kids. They weren't funny with Emma, Andy or Laura though which will have fumed Andy, he would have hoped he could play the victim again after one of them called him selfish.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

he did say this though..

Not quite...he said words to that effect but his tone swung more towards the 'jealous' nature of their argument.
He would have taken a completely different stance had he been in their situation with the thought of his boyfriend possibly not getting to visit.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

In the diary room, saying its not about the task or anything, its people thinking 'why should they get something when I have had nothing' with a lot of them (mainly lateysha and jackson, from what I have seen...very bitter)

Its odd, as I understand that thinking too so I don't necessarily think they are wrong. But seeing it be made up to be about the house and the task and such rather than just...'they can't have anything else, they had a good night last night' was quite pathetic. I do, however, think this was the case for Jason as he has given up his dog also so clearly takes it seriously.

But I would have pushed the button for other housemates to have a good time.

As I have said over and over again, its only a bloody shopping task, they are pretty much redundant these days anyway

Definitely

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Lostie!

Oh yeah, I think his assessment was accurate, I just don't think he needed to be so sneery about it. It seemed (to me) like he was taking issue with the fact that they'd be annoyed when it's something I think is reasonable to be annoyed by.

..yeah this..I thought that he was quite shabby when he said something along the lines of...'oh the others will be fine and cool with this because they're a great bunch of people..'...and then later in the DR with Ed, when Ed was complimenting them..?...Andy was pulling a negative face behind him, and showing that he didn't have a very high opinion of them at all...he may have been accurate in his assessment for sure because the whole task was set up to cause such resentment in their disappointment...but I think what's also accurate is that he may not have made that choice at all to spend time with Ed for the second time, had he had any respect for his fellow housemates...which I don't think he has...his choice to me was very pfffft to them, rather than 'I desperately want to spend time with Ed..'...(I think..)...

[TT350]

JeeZ. Must be hard to live with such a suspicious mind.

From what I observed people were simply trying to give others the opportunity to see their loved ones.

Andy got his cake twice. Yet still bitches about it.

I don't like the cut of his jib. He IS patronising and self righteous.

[delta]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

Of course people will be upset at him having two nights with his (hugely annoying) boyfriend when they haven't had a chance to see their loved ones and points quickly dwindling.

I think Jackson, Lateysha and Chelsea were justified to be annoyed at the fact 15 points had been wasted from the savings and they were hoping to see their kids. They weren't funny with Emma, Andy or Laura though which will have fumed Andy, he would have hoped he could play the victim again after one of them called him selfish.

That wasn't what he said or intimated- he was saying the decision of the five in the garden was disingenuous and the real reasons were different to what they were actually stating. which was......

they felt that it would cause disharmony with the rest of the group and for that reason they wouldn't press the button and turn around. Yes, they felt there would be jealousy, aggro, etc so for the good of the group and a harmonious house they rejected the offer and a peaceful house was their primary concern.

[sampvt]

In respect of Letesha and Jackson, well BB are probably struggling to bring anyone of interest, I mean who wants to see the head of weightwatchers and jacksons drug dealer mate.

[ebandit]

...lateysha's face was the best........annoyed at others...'cos she

wanted it all for herself........

Mark L

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by TT350

JeeZ. Must be hard to live with such a suspicious mind.

From what I observed people were simply trying to give others the opportunity to see their loved ones.

Andy got his cake twice. Yet still bitches about it.

I don't like the cut of his jib. He IS patronising and self righteous.

Basically.

[Ellen]

Originally Posted by delta

That wasn't what he said or intimated- he was saying the decision of the five in the garden was disingenuous and the real reasons were different to what they were actually stating. which was......

they felt that it would cause disharmony with the rest of the group and for that reason they wouldn't press the button and turn around. Yes, they felt there would be jealousy, aggro, etc so for the good of the group and a harmonious house they rejected the offer and a peaceful house was their primary concern.

This

[jet]

Y'all take Andy SO seriously.

[jet]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

I didn't either and I'm a fan of his. I couldn't help thinking that had the shoe been on the other foot...Andy would have a different take on it because he would have been pining for Ed.
I think he let himself down there...he has been fair minded up until now and I expected him to say "it's a personal disappointment but I totally understand where they are coming from"....

I admire his honesty. He had nothing to berate himself for because he didn't press the button in the first place and only did it to turn his podium around after the deed was done. He can see right through the clique and I doubt he gives a shet about them because they have been against him and treated him like a pariah ever since he exposed their duplicity and they nearly shat themselves that they weren't coming across as wonderful. Until he got first saved and are now all over him like a rash...
I'm with you Andy. F88K em'!