Worst BOTP panel ever?

[Robodog]

Rachel Morris and Kate Marlow are not great at the best of times but tonight's show was awful from both of them.

I find it pretty worrying that both of them appear under some kind of banner marked 'psychologist' when really they are just giving their personal opinions like a regular panelist.

Fair enough they don't like Jim/Dexter/Aaron whoever but they really went for it tonight with uncomfortable amounts of bias, cheap shots and insults - no real psychological overview as you'd hope from the 'psych' show.

They had none of the fairness, balance, consideration, grace or eloquence of other psychologists such as Diane Youdale, Dr Funke etc. And certainly none of the sense of humour that those other psychologists have.

I think Rachel insulted the BB viewers tonight saying that Jim votes were just out of sympathy!
Err no Rachel - some people do actually like him for who he is!
BB viewers are not stupid and can make up their own minds about a housemate without a BOTP psychologist dismissing their thinking as wrong! How insulting!

Kate accused Jim of being an all out liar - 'it's in his narrow eyes and stiff arms! ' ?? WTF?
I've never heard such a load of rubbish. This is not psychology, this is just daft (and slightly spiteful) personal opinion making dressed up as psychology.

Ironically, they showed far more prejudice and negativity towards Jim in that one hour than has actually come from him in the entire 3 weeks!

I don't mind such opinions from a regular panelist or audience member but from a 'psychologist' i'd expect better.

Especially after Jim actually had a great show with his tree house talks, not one second of aggro and even managed to bond with Luisa and make her smile! All of which the BOTP panel chose to completely ignore.

Hope he wins now.

[joeysteele]

100% I agree, I think this was a really bad one tonight,full stop.

[abhorson]

The liar comment was unbelievable.

[Kazanne]

You gotto laugh really as they are so so pissed off that Jim is liked

[Vanessa]

You gotto laugh really as they are so so pissed off that Jim is liked

Linda is trying her best to get the public to hate Jim. I wonder which other story she will sell next? :idc:

[abhorson]

And the turnip who looks nothing like Annie Lennox was not doing what she is payed for. It was just anti-Jim propaganda.

[abhorson]

But McGiff was not too bad imo. She toned it down.

[Vanessa]

But McGiff was not too bad imo. She toned it down.

Yes, i was shocked by that. She changed her tune fast. :think:

[joeysteele]

But McGiff was not too bad imo. She toned it down.

I usually cannot stand Carol but tonight she was much fairer than usual.

[Robodog]

You gotto laugh really as they are so so pissed off that Jim is liked

Haha true!

[LaLaLand]

The Annie Lennox one just emits "feminist" so she's going to hate Jim full stop, awful panel.

[Sophiee]

carol's opinions :worship:.

[Robodog]

I usually cannot stand Carol but tonight she was much fairer than usual.

Yeah i agree, she was pretty good tonight. She has a good bounce with Iain which makes her lighter and more of a laugh.

[abhorson]

carol's opinions :worship:.


Yes, were great. She said Jim would win.

[Vanessa]

Yes, were great. She said Jim would win.

:joker:

[Jordan.]

Stop crying just cause they don't like your faves

[Robodog]

Stop crying just cause they don't like your faves

It's beyond that - i'd feel the same whoever they were talking about.

Those two talk like regular panelists - not psychologists - and that kinda needs pointing out.

[abhorson]

Stop crying just cause they don't like your faves


Not crying, they all said Jim will win. They were all right. So credit to them.

[Lex]

Twas a complete hatchet job by the almighty bb "winner-deciders" on the peoples favourite hm Jim!...Linda was creaming her pants! :yuk:

[abhorson]

It's beyond that - i'd feel the same whoever they were talking about.

Those two talk like regular panelists - not psychologists - and that kinda needs pointing out.

:thumbs:

[abhorson]

It was almost hate from them two, not professional at all.

[Jordan.]

It's just a trashy spin off. Do you really expect it to be a deep psychology show?

[MarcusMel]

You can only give offence to people who take offence. If you get angry or upset by what someone says then they are going against your beliefs of how people should behave and you are the one with the problem of dealing with health damaging emotion.

You are welcome to your beliefs, but can you reason out why you have them? How do you know that you are right and everyone with the opposite view is wrong?

For example where does the how the british feel about the French come from.

[Amy Jade]

It's just a trashy spin off. Do you really expect it to be a deep psychology show?

Only when discussing Jim, they're not allowed to say anything negative about him. it's hilarious when 'comedians' go on there and call Linda fat though apparently.

[Vanessa]

It was almost hate from them two, not professional at all.

I agree. I only liked Ian Lee. he was spot on in everything he said.

[Seraphim]

Rachel Morris and Kate Marlow are not great at the best of times but tonight's show was awful from both of them.

I find it pretty worrying that both of them appear under some kind of banner marked 'psychologist' when really they are just giving their personal opinions like a regular panelist.

Fair enough they don't like Jim/Dexter/Aaron whoever but they really went for it tonight with uncomfortable amounts of bias, cheap shots and insults - no real psychological overview as you'd hope from the 'psych' show.

They had none of the fairness, balance, consideration, grace or eloquence of other psychologists such as Diane Youdale, Dr Funke etc. And certainly none of the sense of humour that those other psychologists have.

Kate accused Jim of being an all out liar - 'it's in his narrow eyes and stiff arms! ' ?? WTF?
I've never heard such a load of rubbish. This is not psychology, this is just daft (and slightly spiteful) personal opinion making dressed up as psychology.

I don't mind such opinions from a regular panelist or audience member but from a 'psychologist' i'd expect better.



These people should come with a warning. Rachel Morris made the comment that Luisa looking at Jim was like looking in the mirror. How dare she say that without qualifying exactly what aspect of their psyche/personality/behaviour she was describing.

Luisa: mid 20s, single, dynamic, liberated, shy, mouthy, funny, playful, feminine, girly, emotional, loyal, peace-maker/negotiator, attention-seeker, truthful, party animal, bonded easily and quickly with Linda, etc.

Jim: 60s, alpha male, addict, anger issues, snappy, funny, masculine, unreadable, sly, cunning, clever, formerly abusive & bullying spouse, clashed badly with Linda.

Mirror images? I don't think so.

[abhorson]

It's just a trashy spin off. Do you really expect it to be a deep psychology show?

Of course not, the point is that there was zero worthwhile psychology related comments on the show. Might as well have had three Carols. She was fair.

[Macie Lightfoot]

some people do actually like him for who he is!

well you have to admit that that is worrying

[Sophiee]

Yes, were great. She said Jim would win.
we'll see about that :hehe:

[CaudleHalbard]

Jim has a reputation for being sexist (so would offend women - especially Rachel Morris who is clearly a feminist - possibly lesbian?)

He has a reputation for being homophobic (so would not be liked by Rylan).

Jim also has a rep for being racist - but there were no ethnic minoroties on the panel! :joker:

However everyone on there felt he would win. Which I think he will.

[Jack_]

Please see the thread I made the other night for details on how BOTS isn't biased

As I pointed out then, it is funny how people only accuse it of being biased when it's their favourites that are being criticised (and I say that as someone that's a fan of Jim) but couldn't care less if not

It's a debate show, if everyone on the panel and audience dislikes a certain housemate, that's their prerogative.

[CaudleHalbard]

Please see the thread I made the other night for details on how BOTS isn't biased



Well I don't see how it would be possible for the programme itself to be biased... it is a TV show not an sentient being! :joker:

However, people are allowed to show bias on BOTS, including the presenter of the main show - Emma. Rylan is actually not as bad and (IMO) is turning out to be a much better presenter than Emma for BOTS.

Bias may be OK in viewers' eyes or not OK. But it cannot be denied that bias is permitted. I find it odd that presenters are allowed bias; guests are another matter.

[Seraphim]

The problem about psychologists etc. coming on with superficial and sometimes derisory attitudes is that people do look up to these people, and they trust their judgement as an "expert". Anyone (including people with personality disorders, prejudices, deep childhood wounds) can become a psychologist by doing a handful of open university courses followed by a PHD, specialising in any aspect they choose, and hey presto: they could be sitting on TV hinting that others are sociopaths, while presenting absolutely no evidence or justification whatsover for their conclusions. Meanwhile, the audience are forming opinions based on what they are hearing. It worries me.

[Kizzy]

They were spot on.. It always astounds me how others can't see how jim operates it's so obvious!
Great show tonight.

[Jack_]

I think it's refreshing to hear the presenters opinions of a show and quite frankly I think that's a non-issue on a spin-off show also. There is this belief that a presenter should refrain from giving their opinion so as not to sway the audience, well...um...IMO anyone that would let the presenter dictate their opinion probably shouldn't be watching the show anyway, because that's just stupid

I'm not going to sit here and deny the actual show, as in the Big Brother production team aren't biased sometimes - because they are and I have actually encouraged them to be to make sure the show remains interesting (can't trust the voters with that after all) - see Speidi as an example, but the spin off show? No. If the panellists all dislike a certain housemate, that's just the way it goes. They haven't been selected just because they dislike a certain person, they just dislike them. Simple as

[CaudleHalbard]

I personally don't believe the producers, directors and other senior people in BB give a flying fudge who wins.

It's all about ratings and advertising revenue.

[Seraphim]

Please see the thread I made the other night for details on how BOTS isn't biased

As I pointed out then, it is funny how people only accuse it of being biased when it's their favourites that are being criticised (and I say that as someone that's a fan of Jim) but couldn't care less if not

It's a debate show, if everyone on the panel and audience dislikes a certain housemate, that's their prerogative.

I kinda noticed tonight that when one of the guests was trying to say something which Rylan's co-presenter disagreed with, he raised his voice, talked over them and changed the subject. It was a bit of a fiasco at times. Both Rylan and the other guy need to let the guests speak without interrupting all the time.

[Seraphim]

They were spot on.. It always astounds me how others can't see how jim operates it's so obvious!
Great show tonight.

Rachel Morris made the comment that Luisa looking at Jim was like looking in the mirror.

Luisa: mid 20s, single, dynamic, liberated, shy, mouthy, funny, playful, feminine, girly, emotional, loyal, peace-maker/negotiator, attention-seeker, truthful, party animal, bonded easily and quickly with Linda, etc.

Jim: 60s, alpha male, addict, anger issues, snappy, funny, masculine, unreadable, sly, cunning, clever, formerly abusive & bullying spouse, clashed badly with Linda.

I don't think she was spot on. I've only seen Rachel Morris on the programme twice, and she strikes me as a very callous person.

[minty3]

I honestly don't know why Jim is popular I do believe a fair few of his voters are from Linda/luisa haters I'm not saying that they all are imo he wouldn't be half as popular without them

[Macie Lightfoot]

Honestly I think it says a lot about the casual/unconscious sexism in society when Linda is hated with such vitriol and Jim was successfully able to paint himself as a victim and is coasting to the win even though they've both been horrible to each other.

[Ammi]

..tbh, I agreed with most of their comments on the whole ..I do think Jim is a 'liar' in that he's played a good game of keeping his self control with Linda's obsessive hatred of him and I do think that he's taken advantage of some of it to gain 'sympathy' but who can blame him for that..?..I don't think he's a very pleasant man in general but in the house, he's done really well because he knew that losing his cool would go against him and he's had much more ground to make up with the public than any of them but what he wouldn't have accounted for was Linda and her persistent open hostility which was relentless...there are not many people who could have kept their cool with something like that and either pushed her in the pool or climbed over the fence...so for that, I do give him credit and respect and it would make him a worthy winner...

..I think virtually every BB housemate, whether civilian or celebrity 'lie' in that they all play their game and in the end, it's down to the gameplay that we either like most or it offends us the least..for me, Jim will go down as one of the best BB game players and it's interesting that someone mentioned Arron and Dexter because they were also great gameplayers and what I find funny is that I don't think BBOTS are biased as such, I think people are saying what they believe but they never seem to have a high opinion of great gameplayers or give them the credit that they deserve, which is ironic as they're all part of the process and production of a game show...a game show where game players are frowned upon, how ironic...


...and yet the showmances which are so boringly unoriginal and a lazy gameplay have them fawning at the possibility of it all being true love...

[lostalex]

what happened to that drag queen pete?

[Ammi]

what happened to that drag queen pete?

..yeah, it's been a few years since he was a regular on there, I'm not sure what happened with that...

[Gusto Brunt]

I haven't watched any of the spin off shows this series.

1) Can't stand Rylan. I think he is WORSE than Brian Dowling - and that means BAD. Rylan's so full of himself and I cannot abide his sycophancy towards the people he knows.

2) The audience never change. Same boring people drafted in each night. Tedious beyond belief.

3) As regards the so called experts. Can't stand them either. They make things up as they go along and worse ever in my view was that woman who used to be a Gladiator. Can't remember her name. She was so embarrassing along with an Irish guy who used to be on there.

In one word, DIRE.

Let's hope BBBOTS is totally revamped in the summer.

Sack the resident audience.

Fire Rylan.

HIRE some professional presenters. Ant and Dec would be a dream, but still there is big talent out there.

BB has seen a massive increased interest in the show. Bigger audiences, and it makes the headlines which it never did in the past.

It deserves better.

[smudgie]

Please see the thread I made the other night for details on how BOTS isn't biased

As I pointed out then, it is funny how people only accuse it of being biased when it's their favourites that are being criticised (and I say that as someone that's a fan of Jim) but couldn't care less if not

It's a debate show, if everyone on the panel and audience dislikes a certain housemate, that's their prerogative.

I agree.
I enjoyed last nights show, on the whole I thought they made a lot of sense as well.

[Spoon]

Honestly I think it says a lot about the casual/unconscious sexism in society when Linda is hated with such vitriol and Jim was successfully able to paint himself as a victim and is coasting to the win even though they've both been horrible to each other.

The fact that it's not going completely unnoticed here makes me feel slightly better.

[Slevin]

..tbh, I agreed with most of their comments on the whole ..I do think Jim is a 'liar' in that he's played a good game of keeping his self control with Linda's obsessive hatred of him and I do think that he's taken advantage of some of it to gain 'sympathy' but who can blame him for that..?..I don't think he's a very pleasant man in general but in the house, he's done really well because he knew that losing his cool would go against him and he's had much more ground to make up with the public than any of them but what he wouldn't have accounted for was Linda and her persistent open hostility which was relentless...there are not many people who could have kept their cool with something like that and either pushed her in the pool or climbed over the fence...so for that, I do give him credit and respect and it would make him a worthy winner...

..I think virtually every BB housemate, whether civilian or celebrity 'lie' in that they all play their game and in the end, it's down to the gameplay that we either like most or it offends us the least..for me, Jim will go down as one of the best BB game players and it's interesting that someone mentioned Arron and Dexter because they were also great gameplayers and what I find funny is that I don't think BBOTS are biased as such, I think people are saying what they believe but they never seem to have a high opinion of great gameplayers or give them the credit that they deserve, which is ironic as they're all part of the process and production of a game show...a game show where game players are frowned upon, how ironic...


...and yet the showmances which are so boringly unoriginal and a lazy gameplay have them fawning at the possibility of it all being true love...
yea i dont get why so many hate the game playing. i could get it depends on how that HM is playing but hating on game playing as a whole is rather odd. hope none of those people ever watch BBUS. they would have a field day with the hate.

[MachoPoodle]

As I pointed out then, it is funny how people only accuse it of being biased when it's their favourites that are being criticised (and I say that as someone that's a fan of Jim) but couldn't care less if not


Couldn't agree more!

As for Jim, I can't stand him as a person, but I haven't wanted him out (I just hope he doesn't win). I can understand why people would find him funny or dislike the HMs he dislikes and take his side, at least to an extent. What I cannot understand though, is people not seeing through him. I'll never get the "my fave can do nothing wrong" attitude. You can like something/someone w/o having to put rose tinted glasses on. He IS passive aggressive, he IS a **** stirrer, he IS sexist, he DOES go for the woe is me/martyr role.

[joeysteele]

Please see the thread I made the other night for details on how BOTS isn't biased

As I pointed out then, it is funny how people only accuse it of being biased when it's their favourites that are being criticised (and I say that as someone that's a fan of Jim) but couldn't care less if not

It's a debate show, if everyone on the panel and audience dislikes a certain housemate, that's their prerogative.

I can take that on board Jack however I see it a bit differently.
I do think if they are bothering to have a panel then get a cross section of opinion each time as to housemates, not those who just want to use it to have a go at a housemate like that daft woman next to Linda.
In all honesty I found last night show on botp to just be a support mechanism for Linda.

If you had conflicting views as to the housemates across the board then that would make for a more lively and balanced panel.
The daft Annie Lennox lookalike,(I cannot see it myself,poor Annie Lennox), was asked a simple question, who do you think will win, her answer and she is an invited panelist was, ''My winner is here next to me''. namely Linda.

For goodness sake, where do they dig these ridiculous people up from, Linda is her winner, Linda has just attracted the lowest number of votes to save in a 5 way eviction battle.

The whole show was in my opinion just a get at Jim exercise and make Linda feel better,the programme should not be about that,it should 'reflect' a little at least of reasoned cross section opinion as to the housemates.
Bias can spoil a programme if it is too blatant as it did last year when Emma was far and away more supporting Daley against Hazel.

[thesheriff443]

..tbh, I agreed with most of their comments on the whole ..I do think Jim is a 'liar' in that he's played a good game of keeping his self control with Linda's obsessive hatred of him and I do think that he's taken advantage of some of it to gain 'sympathy' but who can blame him for that..?..I don't think he's a very pleasant man in general but in the house, he's done really well because he knew that losing his cool would go against him and he's had much more ground to make up with the public than any of them but what he wouldn't have accounted for was Linda and her persistent open hostility which was relentless...there are not many people who could have kept their cool with something like that and either pushed her in the pool or climbed over the fence...so for that, I do give him credit and respect and it would make him a worthy winner...

..I think virtually every BB housemate, whether civilian or celebrity 'lie' in that they all play their game and in the end, it's down to the gameplay that we either like most or it offends us the least..for me, Jim will go down as one of the best BB game players and it's interesting that someone mentioned Arron and Dexter because they were also great gameplayers and what I find funny is that I don't think BBOTS are biased as such, I think people are saying what they believe but they never seem to have a high opinion of great gameplayers or give them the credit that they deserve, which is ironic as they're all part of the process and production of a game show...a game show where game players are frowned upon, how ironic...


...and yet the showmances which are so boringly unoriginal and a lazy gameplay have them fawning at the possibility of it all being true love...

I going to agree with you! and add, some game players get away with it because their housemates cant see what they are doing or fall for their lies,

[dyfed]

100% I agree, I think this was a really bad one tonight,full stop.

:worship::worship::worship:
Has to have been one of the worst bots..

[Slevin]

Couldn't agree more!

As for Jim, I can't stand him as a person, but I haven't wanted him out (I just hope he doesn't win). I can understand why people would find him funny or dislike the HMs he dislikes and take his side, at least to an extent. What I cannot understand though, is people not seeing through him. I'll never get the "my fave can do nothing wrong" attitude. You can like something/someone w/o having to put rose tinted glasses on. He IS passive aggressive, he IS a **** stirrer, he IS sexist, he DOES go for the woe is me/martyr role.
yea me neither. my favorites always do something i dont like but it happens. like how some Jim fans say Luisa is a **** stirrer but act like he isnt when those two and a couple more at least have done it. its no big deal. its a good thing to have in a series. needs some people to do that otherwise it would likely be really boring.

[MachoPoodle]

yea me neither. my favorites always do something i dont like but it happens. like how some Jim fans say Luisa is a **** stirrer but act like he isnt when those two and a couple more at least have done it. its no big deal. its a good thing to have in a series. needs some people to do that otherwise it would likely be really boring.

Absolutely! I like Luisa, Ollie, Casey and Linda the best, but they've all done and/or said things I don't agree with. Out of those, I've been most disappointed in Ollie because he hasn't been stirring anything but possibly his fake tan. I watch to be entertained, after all.

[Robodog]

The problem about psychologists etc. coming on with superficial and sometimes derisory attitudes is that people do look up to these people, and they trust their judgement as an "expert". Anyone (including people with personality disorders, prejudices, deep childhood wounds) can become a psychologist by doing a handful of open university courses followed by a PHD, specialising in any aspect they choose, and hey presto: they could be sitting on TV hinting that others are sociopaths, while presenting absolutely no evidence or justification whatsover for their conclusions. Meanwhile, the audience are forming opinions based on what they are hearing. It worries me.

That's what concerns me about the 'psychologists', the effect they have on the viewers. Personal bias is fine - everyone has an opinion and i welcome the opinions of those i disagree with as much as i welcome the opinions of those i do agree with.

The problem here is that the 'psychologists' are given a status above the regular panelists as if they have some higher authority in the psychology dept - therefore are taken a bit more seriously by the show and the audience as if they are doctors/experts in the field of BB and not just regular panelists.

So when they act like regular panelists as they did tonight - just offering up personal bias and spite in the name of psychology then it feels to me like an abuse of their position and title of 'psychologists'. It concerns me that they get taken more seriously as 'experts' when what they are saying is no different to the regular panelists.

If they came on as simply Rachel Morris, Kate Marlow in the main BOTS show alongside Helen Flanagan, Vikki Michelle, Patrick Strudwick etc etc then i wouldn't be writing this.

Loads of panelists i disagree with and it's all part of the BB fun.

But psychologists have a platform above the regular panelists and that comes with a responsibility to be more balanced and less personal.

Judi James, Dr Funke, Diane Youdale, Pam Spurr and Geoffrey Beattie (remember him?) all manage to be more fair, insightful and good humoured.

Rachel and Kate however just seem to aim for controversial and personal opinions without the good humour, fairness and professionalism that you get with the psychologists mentioned above.

PS - by the way i thought Rylan, Iain and Carol were all fine tonight as they usually are. And anyway they aren't under the title of 'psychologists' so they can say what they like.