Bias Anti-Jim episode in Bit of the Psych.

[rubberface]

... ofcourse the Linda was there!

I couldnt believe how biased they were!

[MrWong]

They pointed out that Jim's not being himself in there, which he's already admitted.

Not sure what the problem is here :shrug:

[joeysteele]

It was a very poor panel and an even worse show,it was all a building up exercise for Linda who the viewers voting had just soundly rejected in a 5 way evection battle.

[Blue Cadillac]

What can we expect with an all female panel and two co-presenters who have auto cues for just about everything they say? The panel are probably burning their bras right now.

[Pete.]

Maybe the audience can now wake up to how awful Jim is

[Kizzy]

Defending a man accused of sexism by accusing an all female panel of feminism?
Imo they were spot on.... couldn't have put it better myself!
He does have 2 faces, 'poor me!' and 'who me?'
Apart from his beetroot 'merlot me' face obv.... :laugh;

[Livia]

I thought the babbling psychologist who said Jim's actions proved that he was a liar, and that the police use this same method to detect liars was particularly out of order. If I was Jim's lawyer I'd have been on the phone...

The panel looked like a ******ing coven.

[Jordan.]

Same whining every series when something negative is said about the favourite on bots :sleep:

[delta]

They spent 20 minutes or so telling Linda Nolan what she had done wrong then spent another 20 minutes ( the panel) doing what they told Linda she shouldn't have done, are these men haters thick as well as sad? It just made the audience at home support Jim more.

With reference to the content of what the panel were saying and the 'slaying' of Jim. FFS, people, all people have different sides to them. Jim included, he ain't all bad, he ain't all funny, he ain't all miserable, etc, he's just like the rest of them is made up of many different sides and he's shown them all in there. He just doesn't happen to like, ( and most men don't) Nagging women and loud mouthed women and don't get that mixed up with Clever ,erudite women, there is a vast difference. Luisa likes the sound of her own voice and is not used to being challenged, she's a vacuous, self indulgent ,individual with an annoying monotone voice and like all bullies she backs off in the end.

[Seraphim]

Defending a man accused of sexism by accusing an all female panel of feminism?
Imo they were spot on.... couldn't have put it better myself!
He does have 2 faces, 'poor me!' and 'who me?'
Apart from his beetroot 'merlot me' face obv.... :laugh;

:laugh2:

Well, to be fair to Jim, she was just being mean. He has at least two other faces, :joker: and she was just taking the piss out of the 'victim' behaviour to get a laugh. I haven't a lot of respect for that woman. I don't like the tone of her comments generally and I didn't think her input was all that helpful to Linda. It's not that great for people to go through life domineering other people into agreeing with them, and kicking off towards people she doesn't like. Linda is currently unemployed and there aren't many workplaces where she'd be allowed to exhibit behaviour like that. If she'd worked in my profession, she'd have been sacked.

[JohnnyBB]

that Wasent A bias Episode that was done on porpuse to get the votes in thats what channel 5 dose, have you ever wanted somthing but another person wants it too, but that other person is starting to get onto the fact that you want it, so you have to do somthing to throw them off the scent well thats whats bbbots episode that was, god big brother veiwers have gone so thick.

[flamingGalah!]

Yeah the psychologist woman in particular was obviously a fan of 'The Nolan's', the rubbish she was spouting was hilarious! Love to know where she got her PhD! :joker:

[Kazanne]

Maybe the audience can now wake up to how awful Jim is

What on the hearsay of a few bitter people?I doubt it, if anything people will support him more.:hugesmile:

[Kizzy]

I thought the babbling psychologist who said Jim's actions proved that he was a liar, and that the police use this same method to detect liars was particularly out of order. If I was Jim's lawyer I'd have been on the phone...

The panel looked like a ******ing coven.

3 women sat together look like a coven?

[Robodog]

Yeah it's amazing how many people make their argument that 'Jim is prejudiced' by being more prejudiced about him than he has been in the entire 3 weeks!

It's like shouting 'I HATE PEOPLE SHOUTING!'

[flamingGalah!]

3 women sat together look like a coven?

Yes.

[Josy]

Yeah it's amazing how many people make their argument that 'Jim is prejudiced' by being more prejudiced about him than he has been in the entire 3 weeks!

It's like shouting 'I HATE PEOPLE SHOUTING!'

:joker:

Sure is.

[delta]

The problem with Linda Nolan is she divided the house along the lines of sexism and feminism and Luisa and Sam F were sucked in, she needed a network of men haters around her to bolster her , almost obsessional, hatred of Jim.

It must have been very uncomfortable for Jim Davison being in the house and I am surprised he kept his cool. Notice now the instigator of all the hate has been removed how the house dynamics have changed? For Linda Nolan to use Luisa's mantra about the 46 minutes that we see and that she was never voted for by her fellow housemates all I can say about that, Jim or anyone else doesn't choose which minutes the viewers will see and just because someone doesn't get voted for by their fellow housemates doesn't mean to say that they are popular or well liked, a lot can slip under the radar. Jim and Liz were very easy targets, for what I consider to be a very weak, almost spineless, set of individuals.

In years gone past, numerous people have gone on to win big brother who have been voted for week after week. Life is a game and CBB & BB replicate it in minutiae, they are all playing the game of life with TV cameras on them and they will quite easy vote either for the softest target or the biggest threat. You can include Jim in both of those.

[Robodog]

Funny to compare last nights main show to last nights BOTP

The main show had Jim having insightful psychological conversations with the HMs and managed to compliment them and make them all smile (including Luisa)

The BOTP show had 2 professional 'psychologists' giving their insights about the HMs and only managed to insult them and (unlike Jim) made nobody smile. Far from it.

[Blue Cadillac]

3 women sat together look like a coven?

Okay, three old hags embroiled in their bitterness looked like a coven.

[Livia]

3 women sat together look like a coven?

There were four women. And they looked like 4/13ths of a coven if we're going to be picky about it.

[delta]

Funny to compare last nights main show to mast nights BOTP

The main show had Jim having insightful psychological conversations with the HMs and managed to compliment them and make them all smile (including Luisa)

The BOTP show had 2 professional 'psychologists' giving their insights about the HMs and only managed to insult them and (unlike Jim) made nobody smile. Far from it.


He was really erudite, affable and funny in that clip and that's the Jim Davison we all know, yes he can be blue and near the nuckle at times ( he is old school) but he ain't a hater and has a real heart to him.

All I saw from Linda Nolan was HATRED.

[Blue Cadillac]

He was really erudite, affable and funny in that clip and that's the Jim Davison we all know, yes he can be blue and near the nuckle at times ( he is old school) but he ain't a hater and has a real heart to him.

All I saw from Linda Nolan was HATRED.

Spot on.

[Robodog]

He was really erudite, affable and funny in that clip and that's the Jim Davison we all know, yes he can be blue and near the nuckle at times ( he is old school) but he ain't a hater and has a real heart to him.

All I saw from Linda Nolan was HATRED.

True. The house has been so so so much lighter since she left. Not just Jim but everyone. Look at Luisa !

Linda has given us some great BB rows in the house and made it a great series for that reason but i'm glad she's gone so we can now see them have a laugh together as one for their last few days.

The moody division in the house has gone. Perfect timing for the finale when you do actually want it to be a happy house.

[Jordan.]

Why can no one have an opinion on Jim without getting labeled? The names thrown around on here are so childish.

[Cherie]

The problem with Linda Nolan is she divided the house along the lines of sexism and feminism and Luisa and Sam F were sucked in, she needed a network of men haters around her to bolster her , almost obsessional, hatred of Jim.

It must have been very uncomfortable for Jim Davison being in the house and I am surprised he kept his cool. Notice now the instigator of all the hate has been removed how the house dynamics have changed? For Linda Nolan to use Luisa's mantra about the 46 minutes that we see and that she was never voted for by her fellow housemates all I can say about that, Jim or anyone else doesn't choose which minutes the viewers will see and just because someone doesn't get voted for by their fellow housemates doesn't mean to say that they are popular or well liked, a lot can slip under the radar. Jim and Liz were very easy targets, for what I consider to be a very weak, almost spineless, set of individuals.

In years gone past, numerous people have gone on to win big brother who have been voted for week after week. Life is a game and CBB & BB replicate it in minutiae, they are all playing the game of life with TV cameras on them and they will quite easy vote either for the softest target or the biggest threat. You can include Jim in both of those.

Great post. Liz was nominated every time by the majority of her HMs why are they not lumping her in to the most hated HM category?

[flamingGalah!]

Why can no one have an opinion on Jim without getting labeled? The names thrown around on here are so childish.

Works both ways dear. Why can people who like Jim not have people questioning why we like him & call us names for liking him. Very childish :xyxwave:

[Livia]

I find it hilarious when people assume what they're seeing in the house is feminism. I have never heard a feminist say "you shouldn't swear at a woman". It seems to me they're all feminists when it suits them, and use their sexuality liberally to get what they want the rest of the time.

[Kizzy]

:laugh2:

Well, to be fair to Jim, she was just being mean. He has at least two other faces, :joker: and she was just taking the piss out of the 'victim' behaviour to get a laugh. I haven't a lot of respect for that woman. I don't like the tone of her comments generally and I didn't think her input was all that helpful to Linda. It's not that great for people to go through life domineering other people into agreeing with them, and kicking off towards people she doesn't like. Linda is currently unemployed and there aren't many workplaces where she'd be allowed to exhibit behaviour like that. If she'd worked in my profession, she'd have been sacked.

Her grievance was valid, nobody knows how they would react in similar circumstances, I think she coped very well.
You didn't care for the psychologists tone? That's unfortunate maybe she should adopt rylans screeching tones....or john mccrirricks booming chauvinism?
You can't go through life allowing yourself to be manipulated and humiliated, if you need to make a stand do it.... Don't be shouted down by those who make disparaging comments about women in the vain hope of strengthening their argument.
Let's leave that to UKIP.

[flamingGalah!]

I find it hilarious when people assume what they're seeing in the house is feminism. I have never heard a feminist say "you shouldn't swear at a woman". It seems to me they're all feminists when it suits them, and use their sexuality liberally to get what they want the rest of the time.

Indeed. And I was in shock last night when Luisa said to Jim that she has never been spoken to by a man like he has spoken to her & she expects a gentleman to behave like a gentleman, yet a lady can be vile, swear, be crude & an absolute slut bag like Luisa is. Complete double standards! That is NOT feminism!

[Kizzy]

Funny to compare last nights main show to last nights BOTP

The main show had Jim having insightful psychological conversations with the HMs and managed to compliment them and make them all smile (including Luisa)

The BOTP show had 2 professional 'psychologists' giving their insights about the HMs and only managed to insult them and (unlike Jim) made nobody smile. Far from it.

'Jim had insightful psychological conversations'....But the actuyal psychologist was talking rubbish?
Heard it all now, I give up! :laugh:

[Robodog]

Her grievance was valid, nobody knows how they would react in similar circumstances, I think she coped very well.
You didn't care for the psychologists tone? That's unfortunate maybe she should adopt rylans screeching tones....or john mccrirricks booming chauvinism?
You can't go through life allowing yourself to be manipulated and humiliated, if you need to make a stand do it.... Don't be shouted down by those who make disparaging comments about women in the vain hope of strengthening their argument.
Let's leave that to UKIP.

Rylan and John aren't claiming to be psychologists.

Rachel and Kate are.

But they acted and spoke tonight like John and other such regular opinionated panelists. That's the problem.

[MrWong]

For those rubbishing the opinion of Rachel Morris, what are your qualifications in that field?

[Jack_]

Same whining every series when something negative is said about the favourite on bots :sleep:

Why can no one have an opinion on Jim without getting labeled? The names thrown around on here are so childish.

You win the thread, time to close it now

[Suze]

You don't even have to be a Jim fan, to see how extremely anti Jim that episode was.

[abhorson]

When it was Carol Mcgiffin being the most pleasant about Jim, the alarm bells were ringing.

[Robodog]

You win the thread, time to close it now

No one wins a thread.

Keep it open as long as people want to debate.

[Kizzy]

Rylan and John aren't claiming to be psychologists.

Rachel and Kate are.

But they acted and spoke tonight like John and other such regular opinionated panelists. That's the problem.

I don't feel they did, they vocalised how they felt events in the house played out very well with honesty and conviction.... no histrionics necessary.
Female professionals offering an opinion shouldn't be castigated and labelled witches and feminists, it's rather silly.

[Robodog]

For those rubbishing the opinion of Rachel Morris, what are your qualifications in that field?

Are you suggesting only a qualified chef can tell when a meal is badly cooked?

[Robodog]

I don't feel they did, they vocalised how they felt events in the house played out very well with honesty and conviction.... no histrionics necessary.
Female professionals offering an opinion shouldn't be castigated and labelled witches and feminists, it's rather silly.

Their gender is not an issue here.

Their professionalism is.

[abhorson]

Rylan went from Friday nights BOTS where imo he went from his best ever presenting and interviewing of Linda to Saturdays show where he was dire and controlled instead of being in control.

[Kazanne]

When it was Carol Mcgiffin being the most pleasant about Jim, the alarm bells were ringing.

Yes,it was a bit scarey:hugesmile:

[Suze]

Rylan went from Friday nights BOTS where imo he went from his best ever presenting and interviewing of Linda to Saturdays show where he was dire and controlled instead of being in control.

I expect BB producers wanted Jim to make the final but without a chance of winning, so a word in some shell likes and make it clear it is all sympathy voting for Jim (which I don't happen to think it is at all), and they hope not to get another Aaron situation. It was a totally obvious episode of BOTP of where they were trying to lead the viewers.

[Samm]

It wasn't bias at all

[joeysteele]

Rylan went from Friday nights BOTS where imo he went from his best ever presenting and interviewing of Linda to Saturdays show where he was dire and controlled instead of being in control.

Same for me too.

Also while at Uni, I have seen so called professional Psychologists cause more distress to students with their problems and difficulties than just alking things through with their friends likely would.

They often generalise their advice and analysis on a one fits all assessment.
That is often not the case at all and how come we only get these near nutcases of psychologists on BB,their services don't seem to be in demand anywhere else.

[abhorson]

Same for me too.

Also while at Uni, I have seen so called professional Psychologists cause more distress to students with their problems and difficulties than just alking things through with their friends likely would.

They often generalise their advice and analysis on a one fits all assessment.
That is often not the case at all and how come we only get these near nutcases of psychologists on BB,their services don't seem to be in demand anywhere else.


You win, thread closed:joker:

[Kizzy]

Their gender is not an issue here.

Their professionalism is.

What did you feel was unprofessional about what they said?

[abhorson]

What did you feel was unprofessional about what they said?

They did not say much, that is the point. They were just ass licking Linda.

[rusticgal]

What made me laugh was that Luisa who has decided to bury the hatchet with Jim zsince Linda left (funny that...) sat at the table and told Jim she had never been talked to by a man like Jim had her....She thinks men should have more respect.... So it's ok for a woman to speak to a man the way she has to Jim...but he can't do the same to her because she is a woman.
Now that IS sexist... Luisa is very hypocritical.

[rionablue]

Defending a man accused of sexism by accusing an all female panel of feminism?
Imo they were spot on.... couldn't have put it better myself!
He does have 2 faces, 'poor me!' and 'who me?'
Apart from his beetroot 'merlot me' face obv.... :laugh;

yes Kizzy tell it how it is totally agree :dance:

[Northern Monkey]

What made me laugh was that Luisa who has decided to bury the hatchet with Jim zsince Linda left (funny that...) sat at the table and told Jim she had never been talked to by a man like Jim had her....She thinks men should have more respect.... So it's ok for a woman to speak to a man the way she has to Jim...but he can't do the same to her because she is a woman.
Now that IS sexist... Luisa is very hypocritical.

I know,I laughed hard at that.She is a walking contradiction.She made herself look like a prize idiot when she said that.Silly girl,She's entertaining though,Just not very mature.

[Livia]

Same for me too.

Also while at Uni, I have seen so called professional Psychologists cause more distress to students with their problems and difficulties than just alking things through with their friends likely would.

They often generalise their advice and analysis on a one fits all assessment.
That is often not the case at all and how come we only get these near nutcases of psychologists on BB,their services don't seem to be in demand anywhere else.

Right as usual, joey.

The trouble with psychology is that it isn't an exact science. I drag this story out almost every BB but it's valid here. I once shared an office with a doctor of psychology who was lecturing. I joked, oh no... you're not going to be psychoanalysing me, are you? He told me, the trouble with psychology is, just when you've used all your skills to work someone out and stick them in a pigeon hole, they do something completely out of character and blow your well-educated theory out of the water. It's true of all psychologists, and particularly true of those on TV last night making dangerous, litigious and frankly actionable allegations about Jim's character without ever having met the man. Surely a psychological summing up of someone based on stuff they've read and a few hours of video is shaky at best, and quackery at worst.

[Vanessa]

Linda looks right at home on BOTS, a show that has always been biased against Jim. :rant:

[abhorson]

Right as usual, joey.

The trouble with psychology is that it isn't an exact science. I drag this story out almost every BB but it's valid here. I once shared an office with a doctor of psychology who was lecturing. I joked, oh no... you're not going to be psychoanalysing me, are you? He told me, the trouble with psychology is, just when you've used all your skills to work someone out and stick them in a pigeon hole, they do something completely out of character and blow your well-educated theory out of the water. It's true of all psychologists, and particularly true of those on TV last night making dangerous, litigious and frankly actionable allegations about Jim's character without ever having met the man. Surely a psychological summing up of someone based on stuff they've read and a few hours of video is shaky at best, and quackery at worst.

:thumbs: The dancing doctor could have given more expert views that those two last night.

[Kizzy]

Trying to discredit professionals by rubbishing their field of expertise is rather odd.
All because of a less than favourable account of jims behaviour in the house.

[Livia]

Trying to discredit professionals by rubbishing their field of expertise is rather odd.
All because of a less than favourable account of jims behaviour in the house.

I was quoting a professional in that field. It was he who effectively rubbished it, I was merely passing on what he said.

What's odd is accepting a professional psychological account of someone's actions based on watching the telly and reading a biog. It isn't professional. What those women gave were opinions, nothing more. And opinions, as we know, are like arseholes in that everyone's got one, and theirs were no more valid than anyone's who doesn't like Jim.

[Millicent]

Very disappointed in BBBOTS last night. Panel were biased and made Linda look like a Nun, the majority of the public cannot be wrong about Jim and even if he is playing a game he still comes across as a nicer person than Linda. Disappointed that the producers couldn't put a panel member in that could fight Jim's corner. If it was for Rylands co presenter saying that he had enjoyed watching Jim, there was no support. As always Rylands just sits on the fence because he wants to be liked by all and is not strong enough to ask the questions that the public want to ask.

[Millicent]

Very disappointed in BBBOTS last night. Panel were biased and made Linda look like a Nun, the majority of the public cannot be wrong about Jim and even if he is playing a game he still comes across as a nicer person than Linda. Disappointed that the producers couldn't put a panel member in that could fight Jim's corner. If it was for Rylands co presenter saying that he had enjoyed watching Jim, there was no support. As always Rylands just sits on the fence because he wants to be liked by all and is not strong enough to ask the questions that the public want to ask.

[Livia]

Well said Millicent... welcome to TiBB.

[Vanessa]

Very disappointed in BBBOTS last night. Panel were biased and made Linda look like a Nun, the majority of the public cannot be wrong about Jim and even if he is playing a game he still comes across as a nicer person than Linda. Disappointed that the producers couldn't put a panel member in that could fight Jim's corner. If it was for Rylands co presenter saying that he had enjoyed watching Jim, there was no support. As always Rylands just sits on the fence because he wants to be liked by all and is not strong enough to ask the questions that the public want to ask.

The only one talking any sense was Ian Lee and he was not on the panel. :joker:

[GiRTh]

I thought the babbling psychologist who said Jim's actions proved that he was a liar, and that the police use this same method to detect liars was particularly out of order. If I was Jim's lawyer I'd have been on the phone...

The panel looked like a ******ing coven.This

[Millicent]

I know,I laughed hard at that.She is a walking contradiction.She made herself look like a prize idiot when she said that.Silly girl,She's entertaining though,Just not very mature.

One rule for Luisa and another for Jim

[Vanessa]

One rule for Luisa and another for Jim

I think Luisa is very entertaining, but a walking contradiction. Nice that her and Jim are finding some common ground.

[anne666]

They pointed out that Jim's not being himself in there, which he's already admitted.

Not sure what the problem is here :shrug:

Me neither.:conf:

[Kizzy]

I was quoting a professional in that field. It was he who effectively rubbished it, I was merely passing on what he said.

What's odd is accepting a professional psychological account of someone's actions based on watching the telly and reading a biog. It isn't professional. What those women gave were opinions, nothing more. And opinions, as we know, are like arseholes in that everyone's got one, and theirs were no more valid than anyone's who doesn't like Jim.

So you say.... And as we can't corroborate your story let's leave it there.
They gave a professional opinion, there's a slight difference. If a doctor told me I was ill I might trust his/her opinion over my next door neighbour.

[Robodog]

Me neither.:conf:

The problem for me was Rachel and Kate acted and spoke like regular BOTS panelists giving nothing more than their personal, sensationalist and often mean opinions but under the guise of 'expert psychologists'.

It's not about favourites - i'd have felt the same if they had gone to town on Linda in the same way in the name of 'psychologists'.

If they appeared as regular BOTS panelists and said the same things i wouldn't be bothered. Loads of opinionated panelists on there from all sides and it makes the show entertaining.

It's just hearing Rachel and Kate's 'regular panelist talk' under the label of 'psychologist/expert' that i took offence to last night.

For example : Kate dubbing Jim a liar because he has 'narrow eyes and stiff arms'. Do psychological experts apply that to everybody who has narrow eyes then? Or is she just saying that to discredit Jim?

[Livia]

So you say.... And as we can't corroborate your story let's leave it there.
They gave a professional opinion, there's a slight difference. If a doctor told me I was ill I might trust his/her opinion over my next door neighbour.

"We" can't corroborate your story? What have you set up a panel? LMAO... If everyone who posts here - including you - is going to have to have everything they say corroborated it's going to get pretty tedious.

If a doctor told you were ill based on a summing up of what you've done in your past and a few hours of video tape I'd say you were going to a quack.

[chuff me dizzy]

It was neither biased nor anti Jim it was FACTS,FACTS that been pointed out over and over on here for 3 weeks, he IS a liar, he IS a fake ,hes used Linda,Luisa to gain camera time ,and brownie points by turning himself into the poor victim,(just as he did when he beat his wife to a pulp)all proven by experts in the fields ,if they had said he was everything wonderful his fans would have jumped on it and claimed it as law, but because neither of the experts had a single good word to say about him they are wrong ? I dont think so

[chuff me dizzy]

So you say.... And as we can't corroborate your story let's leave it there.
They gave a professional opinion, there's a slight difference. If a doctor told me I was ill I might trust his/her opinion over my next door neighbour.

EXACTLY Kizzy !!!

[chuff me dizzy]

Trying to discredit professionals by rubbishing their field of expertise is rather odd.
All because of a less than favourable account of jims behaviour in the house.

IF they had praised Jim ,the fans would have held on their every last word, but they didnt ,so the experts are wrong? how predictable ? :bored:

[Kizzy]

"We" can't corroborate your story? What have you set up a panel? LMAO... If everyone who posts here - including you - is going to have to have everything they say corroborated it's going to get pretty tedious.

If a doctor told you were ill based on a summing up of what you've done in your past and a few hours of video tape I'd say you were going to a quack.

'We' the forum... unless the rest of the forum believe you naturally...LMFAO
Anyhoo, it remains that the people asked in their professional capacity to give an opinion did so, if some choose not to accept that as it doesn't fit with their blinkered perception then whatchagondo?

[reece(:]

It was neither biased nor anti Jim it was FACTS,FACTS that been pointed out over and over on here for 3 weeks, he IS a liar, he IS a fake ,hes used Linda,Luisa to gain camera time ,and brownie points by turning himself into the poor victim,(just as he did when he beat his wife to a pulp)all proven by experts in the fields ,if they had said he was everything wonderful his fans would have jumped on it and claimed it as law, but because neither of the experts had a single good word to say about him they are wrong ? I dont think so
Totally agree chuff, well said

[Kizzy]

EXACTLY Kizzy !!!

:worship:

[GiRTh]

It was completely biased as the show has been for most of this series. I dont think they can come to grips with the fact that someone so hated is actually gonna win the show.

To brand Jims 'performance' in the house as an act was a truly misleading summation. The psych also said Jim and Luisa are very similar but I dont remember her saying Luisa was acting. This kind of inconsistency can be found throughout the show over every series and I'm not even surprised by it anymore. I cant be arsed about it cuz ironically their target is probably gonna win. .

[Cherie]

It was completely biased as the show has been for most of this series. I dont think they can come to grips with the fact that someone so hated is actually gonna win the show.

To brand Jims 'performance' in the house as an act was a truly misleading summation. The psych also said Jim and Luisa are very similar but I dont remember her saying Luisa was acting. This kind of inconsistency can be found throughout the show over every series and I'm not even surprised by it anymore. I cant be arsed about it cuz ironically their target is probably gonna win. .

.

I expect bias from BOTS now, standard procedure for the show I pay it no heed. No matter if you like them or not we need Jim or Luisa to win to set down the marker for BB15, if we get a coaster like Ollie or Sam winning such a great series it will be :bored:

[Alf]

if some choose not to accept that as it doesn't fit with their blinkered perception then watchagondo?
When did Hulk Hogan join the forum?

[flamingGalah!]

It was neither biased nor anti Jim it was FACTS,FACTS that been pointed out over and over on here for 3 weeks, he IS a liar, he IS a fake ,hes used Linda,Luisa to gain camera time ,and brownie points by turning himself into the poor victim,(just as he did when he beat his wife to a pulp)all proven by experts in the fields ,if they had said he was everything wonderful his fans would have jumped on it and claimed it as law, but because neither of the experts had a single good word to say about him they are wrong ? I dont think so

What 'facts'? How is he a 'liar'?? :conf:

Linda is the liar, she told Lee her husband didn't steal any money, when the tealeaf was caught on camera! :joker:

And Jim didn't start on Linda, it was her who had a problem with HIM from day 1. She was the one who jumped on everything he said & turned everything into an argument (even him cooking her dinner!) So I don't see how you came to the conclusion that HE used Linda & Luisa to get airtime?? When Luisa was simply Linda's trained dog, who she used to bite on command! :joker:

And do you seriously think those psychologists can carry out an adequate prognosis on someone from watching a bit of them on TV?!? Even the most highly respected psychologists in the world would not be able to pin point someone's character without many sessions on a one to one level :joker:

[Robodog]

It was neither biased nor anti Jim it was FACTS,FACTS that been pointed out over and over on here for 3 weeks, he IS a liar, he IS a fake ,hes used Linda,Luisa to gain camera time ,and brownie points by turning himself into the poor victim,(just as he did when he beat his wife to a pulp)all proven by experts in the fields ,if they had said he was everything wonderful his fans would have jumped on it and claimed it as law, but because neither of the experts had a single good word to say about him they are wrong ? I dont think so

So it's a 'FACT' that people with narrow eyes are all liars then? ?

Dosen't matter if they said that about Jim, Linda or anyone. It's not a FACT it's ridiculous. Especially coming from a psych 'expert'.

ps - using capitals just makes your argument look more desperate to be true - it doesn't make it actually more true

[flamingGalah!]

'We' the forum... unless the rest of the forum believe you naturally...LMFAO
Anyhoo, it remains that the people asked in their professional capacity to give an opinion did so, if some choose not to accept that as it doesn't fit with their blinkered perception then whatchagondo?

One could argue that it is the ones who have such irrational hatred for Jim that are watching the show 'blinkered' :thumbs:

[chuff me dizzy]

I understand what they said was a bitter pill for some to swallow,and egg on face is never a good look. even though some had told you for a long while that he was poison ,liar,fake,user, lift your bottoms lips up, learn from it, and next series be more careful of who you turn into a demi-God ,make sure they are worthy next time

[GiRTh]

.

I expect bias from BOTS now, standard procedure for the show I pay it no heed. No matter if you like them or not we need Jim or Luisa to win to set down the marker for BB15, if we get a coaster like Ollie or Sam winning such a great series it will be :bored:Totally agree. The bias is so obvious it cant be taken too seriously IMO. I just watch BOTs to see some exclusive footage as I find everything else about the show struggles to stay neutral.. Even in last nights show Ian Lee had to make a point of stating he had enjoyed Jim in the house as the anti Jim feeling was so strong with load of cheering and whooping with every anti Jim statement. I often wonder; what species are the BOTs audience? :joker:

[Robodog]

One could argue that it is the ones who have such irrational hatred for Jim that are watching the show 'blinkered' :thumbs:

True.

One things for sure - for the past 3 weeks - there is alot more knee-jerk, blinkered prejudice coming towards Jim than there is coming from Jim.

[chuff me dizzy]

So it's a 'FACT' that people with narrow eyes are all liars then? ?

Dosen't matter if they said that about Jim, Linda or anyone. It's not a FACT it's ridiculous. Especially coming from a psych 'expert'.

ps - using capitals just makes your argument look more desperate to be true - it doesn't make it actually more true

Right answer this truthfully ,IF they both had said jim was NOT playing a game, using others to make himself look the poor victim would you have believed it ?

[Robodog]

I believe only what i see, not what others tell me to believe. Whether i agree with them or not.

If they had said his narrow eyes and stiff arms meant he was an honest person i would have found it equally as ridiculous as them using it to say he was a liar.

[GiRTh]

Right answer this truthfully ,IF they both had said jim was NOT playing a game, using others to make himself look the poor victim would you have believed it ?
Theres no doubt about it Jim is playing a game. He clearly good at arguing he seems to walk away at the right time and then he very skillfully keeps the argument going by getting people on his side. Usually the boys. He very good at it but I dont think that make him vile or anything else that I've seen him called on here and on BOTS. He's the best player in the game this series and had played it beautifully. It would have been nice if someone on BOTs had said something along those lines instead of the constant sniping.

[chuff me dizzy]

Theres no doubt about it Jim is playing a game. He clearly good at arguing he seems to walk away at the right time and then he very skillfully keeps the argument going by getting people on his side. Usually the boys. He very good at it but I dont think that make him vile or anything else that I've seen him called on here and on BOTS. He's the best player in the game this series and had played it beautifully. It would have been nice if someone on BOTs had said something along those lines instead of the constant sniping.

I think hes played it in a foul dirty way ,attacking a dead man ? no ,hes been sussed ,he wasnt as clever as he thought he was

[GiRTh]

I think hes played it in a foul dirty way ,attacking a dead man ? no ,hes been sussed ,he wasnt as clever as he thought he was
Thats the only time he didn't stop himself from saying something inappropriate but he's covered over it well by claiming it was Linda who bought it up on opening night. He's played a great game. Whether you think it was dirty or not I would think that someone on BOTS should acknowledge how he's so skillfully managed to get so much public support.

[Kazanne]

I don't care what people say,I like Jim,always have done,and no amount of slander,hearsay and rumours will make me change my mind,and Linda Nolan the swinger has nothing to crow about,so Jim to win

[Livia]

'We' the forum... unless the rest of the forum believe you naturally...LMFAO
Anyhoo, it remains that the people asked in their professional capacity to give an opinion did so, if some choose not to accept that as it doesn't fit with their blinkered perception then whatchagondo?

You think you are the mouthpiece for the forum now? That's half sad and half hilarious.

Why shouldn't the rest of the forum believe an anecdote of mine? Are you saying I'm lying? Why would I bother? Lots of people tell stories and anecdotes to illustrate their point, but you only have to have it corroborated when it's me. Still grinding that tired old axe, Kizzy.

I do not have a blinkered perception, in fact it's more a case or your own perception being blinkered in this case. You choose to accept the "professional" opinion because it happened to fit in with your own view of Jim, and you'll that argue to the point of boredom. If they had been singing Jim's praises and rubbishing some favourite of yours, your opinion would change accordingly. Personally, I find the psychologists equally as inept whoever it is they're summing up.

[fleabee]

Hi, I'm new :)
I love Jim, he's just like any man on the street. he's not full of crap, unlike that horrible Linda.
Hope he wins or comes 2nd

[Vanessa]

Hi, I'm new :)
I love Jim, he's just like any man on the street. he's not full of crap, unlike that horrible Linda.
Hope he wins or comes 2nd

Hello! Welcome to the forum! I love Dappy and Jim! :wavey:

[Kazanne]

Hi, I'm new :)
I love Jim, he's just like any man on the street. he's not full of crap, unlike that horrible Linda.
Hope he wins or comes 2nd

:xyxwave: hello fleabee welcome to Tibb,I like Jim too

[Livia]

Hi, I'm new :)
I love Jim, he's just like any man on the street. he's not full of crap, unlike that horrible Linda.
Hope he wins or comes 2nd

Hello Fleabee, welcome to the forum.

[chuff me dizzy]

Thats the only time he didn't stop himself from saying something inappropriate but he's covered over it well by claiming it was Linda who bought it up on opening night. He's played a great game. Whether you think it was dirty or not I would think that someone on BOTS should acknowledge how he's so skillfully managed to get so much public support.

Any support hes got is under false circumstances, but I noticed Friday night he didnt get the amount of cheers hes got before ,I still think hes won it ,but should he have done ?No ,he won it by being evil to people,using people and being a fake ,his lapdog Dappy has done the same thing ,hes another one who thinks the public are as thick as dog do,s ,and dont know the real him ,they forget we all have google at our fingertips, This is why I would not be gutted if Luisa wins, shes been 100% honest (too much so some times, esp with her sex stories) but I love honesty ,and people should be applauded for being honest

[Ellen]

I don't care what people say,I like Jim,always have done,and no amount of slander,hearsay and rumours will make me change my mind,and Linda Nolan the swinger has nothing to crow about,so Jim to win

Agree :thumbs:

[chuff me dizzy]

You think you are the mouthpiece for the forum now? That's half sad and half hilarious.

Why shouldn't the rest of the forum believe an anecdote of mine? Are you saying I'm lying? Why would I bother? Lots of people tell stories and anecdotes to illustrate their point, but you only have to have it corroborated when it's me. Still grinding that tired old axe, Kizzy.

I do not have a blinkered perception, in fact it's more a case or your own perception being blinkered in this case. You choose to accept the "professional" opinion because it happened to fit in with your own view of Jim, and you'll that argue to the point of boredom. If they had been singing Jim's praises and rubbishing some favourite of yours, your opinion would change accordingly. Personally, I find the psychologists equally as inept whoever it is they're summing up.

I think youve read Kizzy wrong ,I doubt very much she was making out she spoke for the entire forum ,shes not that arrogant

[GiRTh]

Any support hes got is under false circumstances, but I noticed Friday night he didnt get the amount of cheers hes got before ,I still think hes won it ,but should he have done ?No ,he won it by being evil to people,using people and being a fake ,his lapdog Dappy has done the same thing ,hes another one who thinks the public are as thick as dog do,s ,and dont know the real him ,they forget we all have google at our fingertips, This is why I would not be gutted if Luisa wins, shes been 100% honest (too much so some times, esp with her sex stories) but I love honesty ,and people should be applauded for being honestOK if you think so but I can only think of the Frank Carson comment that showed any kind of intent from Jim If you have other examples please share so I dont get where he has been 'evil'. Also you like Luisa and you want her to win and you like the psych slagging off Jim but the psych also said Jim and Luisa are very similar. You might want to think about that.

[fleabee]

Hello Fleabee, welcome to the forum.

Hi and thank you

[joeysteele]

Right as usual, joey.

The trouble with psychology is that it isn't an exact science. I drag this story out almost every BB but it's valid here. I once shared an office with a doctor of psychology who was lecturing. I joked, oh no... you're not going to be psychoanalysing me, are you? He told me, the trouble with psychology is, just when you've used all your skills to work someone out and stick them in a pigeon hole, they do something completely out of character and blow your well-educated theory out of the water. It's true of all psychologists, and particularly true of those on TV last night making dangerous, litigious and frankly actionable allegations about Jim's character without ever having met the man. Surely a psychological summing up of someone based on stuff they've read and a few hours of video is shaky at best, and quackery at worst.



Thank you Livia.

I totally agree with every word of your post above, sometimes these people on the wrong outlet can do more harm than good.

I also have to say I think 'quackery' is a brilliant way of describing those individuals especially on Bit on the Psych last night.:hugesmile:

[dwarling]

Hi, I'm new :)
I love Jim, he's just like any man on the street. he's not full of crap, unlike that horrible Linda.
Hope he wins or comes 2nd

Hi :xyxwave: good to have you here...I also really like Jim,..and Dappy too'..
they are really good together..
I hope Jim wins it and that Dappy is second,..and at the moment, that Luisa comes third.

[joeysteele]

Hi, I'm new :)
I love Jim, he's just like any man on the street. he's not full of crap, unlike that horrible Linda.
Hope he wins or comes 2nd

Very well said fleabea.
A strong welcome to the forum,I hope you really enjoy posting on here.

[flamingGalah!]

I understand what they said was a bitter pill for some to swallow,and egg on face is never a good look. even though some had told you for a long while that he was poison ,liar,fake,user, lift your bottoms lips up, learn from it, and next series be more careful of who you turn into a demi-God ,make sure they are worthy next time

Oh Chuff :joker:

The ones with egg on their faces are the ones who are slating Jim... Linda is the poisonous one, she did all she could to make people hate him, but it didn't work... JIM TO WIN!! :dance:

[chuff me dizzy]

Oh Chuff :joker:

The ones with egg on their faces are the ones who are slating Jim... Linda is the poisonous one, she did all she could to make people hate him, but it didn't work... JIM TO WIN!! :dance:

IF experts had said he was an angel would you have believed it ?

[Seraphim]

Right as usual, joey.

The trouble with psychology is that it isn't an exact science. I drag this story out almost every BB but it's valid here. I once shared an office with a doctor of psychology who was lecturing. I joked, oh no... you're not going to be psychoanalysing me, are you? He told me, the trouble with psychology is, just when you've used all your skills to work someone out and stick them in a pigeon hole, they do something completely out of character and blow your well-educated theory out of the water. It's true of all psychologists, and particularly true of those on TV last night making dangerous, litigious and frankly actionable allegations about Jim's character without ever having met the man. Surely a psychological summing up of someone based on stuff they've read and a few hours of video is shaky at best, and quackery at worst.

I agree. I absolutely agree.

I myself posted this yesterday:

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.

Robodog posted this wonderful post in response:

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6663046&postcount=54

[sampvt]

The definition of the word EXPERT, is as follows...an EX is a has been and a SPURT is a drip under pressure, ergo EXSPURT or EXPERT.

[Seraphim]

Livia - I take my hat off to you for your intelligent and insightful posts.

[Kizzy]

One could argue that it is the ones who have such irrational hatred for Jim that are watching the show 'blinkered' :thumbs:

We're discussing what the psychologists on the show think, not me.
And I don't hate jim, I'm just aware how he operates.

[chuff me dizzy]

No ones answered my question ,IF the experts you choose to dismiss ,had said he was an angel ,and 100% genuine,not playing a nasty game ,would you have opened a thread calling them charlatans ,simple yes or no answer will surfice

[flamingGalah!]

IF experts had said he was an angel would you have believed it ?

I don't believe ANYTHING these "experts" have to say Chuff, it is a load of cobblers... Did you not know that any Tom, Dick or Harry can get an "ology" at uni, there are no rights or wrongs, it is the sort of thing someone studies at uni where they only have to turn up to two lectures a week & they are guaranteed a degree :joker:

We're discussing what the psychologists on the show think, not me.
And I don't hate jim, I'm just aware how he operates.

I didn't mention what you think dear & I couldn't care less anyway... But I would hate to think how you would comment on someone you DID hate! :joker:

[Livia]

I agree. I absolutely agree.

I myself posted this yesterday:

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.

Robodog posted this wonderful post in response:

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6663046&postcount=54

Great post Seraphim, and from Robodog also. I missed these yesterday, thanks for reposting.

[Seraphim]

No ones answered my question ,IF the experts you choose to dismiss ,had said he was an angel ,and 100% genuine,not playing a nasty game ,would you have opened a thread calling them charlatans ,simple yes or no answer will surfice

No-one is perfect, and none of us are genuine, because we are made up of many complex layers formed over time. There's a book called "The Games People Play" which outlines the ways that people will adopt particular roles as a result of external/internal stimuli or circumstances. e.g. Linda adopting her parental role in the house. In the eyes off a psychologist, and in reality, we all play games, we all manipulate, we all conceal. Jim in those respects is no different from anyone else.

When a psychologist refers to someone as being manipulative, it means nothing unless he/she explains in what way they are being manipulative, because everyone manipulates other people in order to achieve their goals.

We all conceal our weaknesses because exposing them would make us vulnerable, and we all conceal our faults because as humans, we are dependent on others, therefore must be accepted by the social group.

[Kizzy]

You think you are the mouthpiece for the forum now? That's half sad and half hilarious.

Why shouldn't the rest of the forum believe an anecdote of mine? Are you saying I'm lying? Why would I bother? Lots of people tell stories and anecdotes to illustrate their point, but you only have to have it corroborated when it's me. Still grinding that tired old axe, Kizzy.

I do not have a blinkered perception, in fact it's more a case or your own perception being blinkered in this case. You choose to accept the "professional" opinion because it happened to fit in with your own view of Jim, and you'll that argue to the point of boredom. If they had been singing Jim's praises and rubbishing some favourite of yours, your opinion would change accordingly. Personally, I find the psychologists equally as inept whoever it is they're summing up.

Of course not, don't resort to the ol goto response of condescension please livia.
My point was you can't discredit psychology is an inexact science due to your alleged conversation with one psychologist.
Of course I'm not saying you're lying, it does conveniently fit your theory, but that probably coincidence.
Don't suppose you know how or what my responses will be... you don't.
We don't agree on this it's not unheard of, but not the end of the world.

[Livia]

Of course not, don't resort to the ol goto response of condescension please livia.
My point was you can't discredit psychology is an inexact science due to your alleged conversation with one psychologist.
Of course I'm not saying you're lying, it does conveniently fit your theory, but that probably coincidence.
Don't suppose you know how or what my responses will be... you don't.
We don't agree on this it's not unheard of, but not the end of the world.

Whatever, can't be arsed to read it.

[Seraphim]

No ones answered my question ,IF the experts you choose to dismiss ,had said he was an angel ,and 100% genuine,not playing a nasty game ,would you have opened a thread calling them charlatans ,simple yes or no answer will surfice

To an extent, no-one is perfect, and none of us are genuine, because we are made up of many complex layers formed over time. There's a book called "Games People Play" about transactional analysis. It explores social interactions, and outlines the ways in which people will adopt particular roles as a result of external/internal stimuli or circumstances. e.g. Linda adopting her parental role in the house. In the eyes of a psychologist, and in reality, we all play these "games", we all manipulate, we all conceal. Jim in those respects is no different from anyone else.

When a psychologist refers to someone as being manipulative, it means nothing unless he/she explains in what way the person is being manipulative, because in psychobabble, most people manipulate others in order to achieve their goals, from children who want a cuddle to adults who want the last of the wine. A lot of the time, this is not even a conscious thing.

We all conceal our weaknesses because exposing them would make us vulnerable, and we all conceal our faults because as humans we are dependent on others, and therefore must be accepted by the social group.

[Kizzy]

Yes anyone can get a degree and a PHD, sounds ridiculous...and it is.

[Kizzy]

To an extent, no-one is perfect, and none of us are genuine, because we are made up of many complex layers formed over time. There's a book called "Games People Play" about transactional analysis. It explores social interactions, and outlines the ways in which people will adopt particular roles as a result of external/internal stimuli or circumstances. e.g. Linda adopting her parental role in the house. In the eyes of a psychologist, and in reality, we all play these "games", we all manipulate, we all conceal. Jim in those respects is no different from anyone else.

When a psychologist refers to someone as being manipulative, it means nothing unless he/she explains in what way the person is being manipulative, because in psychobabble, most people manipulate others in order to achieve their goals, from children who want a cuddle to adults who want the last of the wine. A lot of the time, this is not even a conscious thing.

We all conceal our weaknesses because exposing them would make us vulnerable, and we all conceal our faults because as humans, we are dependent on others, and therefore must be accepted by the social group.

Hang on, are you now saying you know more about psychology than psychologists because you read a book written by a psychologist?...

[GiRTh]

No ones answered my question ,IF the experts you choose to dismiss ,had said he was an angel ,and 100% genuine,not playing a nasty game ,would you have opened a thread calling them charlatans ,simple yes or no answer will surficeIf the psych said Jim was genuine and honest I'd have said they were full of sh*t.

[optimisticcynic]

Hang on, are you now saying you know more about psychology than psychologists because you read a book written by a psychologist?...

Kate Marlow from the panel is a "performance coach"- not sure what that is or why her opinion is more valid than any other voter's, rachel is a psychologist (though she lacks objectivity) and mcgiffin, although I find her quite funny, is only providing her own opinion.

Kate Marlow - "Can I just say that in person, Linda, you are a beautiful and lovely person". This is in no way an objective assessment from a professional perspective as there is no evidence-based scale of loveliness, but a personal opinion.

Rachel (psychologist): "You made outing Jim Davidson as a fraud and a nasty person more important in some ways than playing the game in the house but I think what ended up happening is that you ended up giving Jim exactly what he needed to look like a victim and make you look like a harridan and a nagging b**** and I think that has got him a sympathy vote that he wouldn't have got otherwise. It's not your fault. You tried!" Not objective. Not professional.

This is a panel of individuals as valid in their opinions as any three plucked from the audience or the street. Bit on the psych is an utter fallacy. Three doctors playing table tennis cannot be promoted as a medical drama.

[optimisticcynic]

If the psych said Jim was genuine and honest I'd have said they were full of sh*t.

Psychologists and psychiatrists cannot see into people's souls. They can make observations that could be right or wrong, they often differ in their opinions of situations, and the fact this lot pretend they can does my head in, no matter who they are talking about.

[Kizzy]

Kate Marlow from the panel is a "performance coach"- not sure what that is or why her opinion is more valid than any other voter's, rachel is a psychologist (though she lacks objectivity) and mcgiffin, although I find her quite funny, is only providing her own opinion.

Kate Marlow - "Can I just say that in person, Linda, you are a beautiful and lovely person". This is in no way an objective assessment from a professional perspective as there is no evidence-based scale of loveliness, but a personal opinion.

Rachel (psychologist): "You made outing Jim Davidson as a fraud and a nasty person more important in some ways than playing the game in the house but I think what ended up happening is that you ended up giving Jim exactly what he needed to look like a victim and make you look like a harridan and a nagging b**** and I think that has got him a sympathy vote that he wouldn't have got otherwise. It's not your fault. You tried!" Not objective. Not professional.

This is a panel of individuals as valid in their opinions as any three plucked from the audience or the street. Bit on the psych is an utter fallacy. Three doctors playing table tennis cannot be promoted as a medical drama.

That in no way explains what you said, tell me more about this book you found so facinating....

[chuff me dizzy]

Kate Marlow from the panel is a "performance coach"- not sure what that is or why her opinion is more valid than any other voter's, rachel is a psychologist (though she lacks objectivity) and mcgiffin, although I find her quite funny, is only providing her own opinion.

Kate Marlow - "Can I just say that in person, Linda, you are a beautiful and lovely person". This is in no way an objective assessment from a professional perspective as there is no evidence-based scale of loveliness, but a personal opinion.

Rachel (psychologist): "You made outing Jim Davidson as a fraud and a nasty person more important in some ways than playing the game in the house but I think what ended up happening is that you ended up giving Jim exactly what he needed to look like a victim and make you look like a harridan and a nagging b**** and I think that has got him a sympathy vote that he wouldn't have got otherwise. It's not your fault. You tried!" Not objective. Not professional.

This is a panel of individuals as valid in their opinions as any three plucked from the audience or the street. Bit on the psych is an utter fallacy. Three doctors playing table tennis cannot be promoted as a medical drama.

Oh please spare us :shocked:,are the the asparugus lady ?

[chuff me dizzy]

I only asked for a one word answer ,yes or No ,would you have opened a thread calling the experts (in their fields) liars and charlatans if they had said Jim was NOT playing a game, I didnt want a load of copy and paste stuff

[optimisticcynic]

That in no way explains what you said, tell me more about this book you found so facinating....

Wrong person kizzy. I never quoted a book.

[GiRTh]

I only asked for a one word answer ,yes or No ,would you have opened a thread calling the experts (in their fields) liars and charlatans if they had said Jim was NOT playing a game, I didnt want a load of copy and paste stuffI've answered you.

[optimisticcynic]

Oh please spare us :shocked:,are the the asparugus lady ?

Chuff, I am a psychiatrist with 23yrs experience, a dual-training CCT in Working Age Adult Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, a Masters in Clinical Psychiatry and I treat truly ill people six days a week. I can spot a credible colleague when I see one, and you are not receiving the expert opinions you are being led to believe.

What are your qualifications?

[GiRTh]

Chuff, I am a psychiatrist with 23yrs experience, a dual-training CCT in Working Age Adult Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, a Masters in Clinical Psychiatry and I treat truly ill people six days a week. I can spot a credible colleague when I see one, and you are not receiving the expert opinions you are being led to believe.

What are your qualifications?Ouch!!!!!

[the truth]

The show is an absolute disgrace....hetrophobia like this will continue to pollute our airwaves and poison the minds of our children until men actually stand up to this mass bigotry and take legal action. its time men bit back through the courts. jim has been slandered by all and sundry knowing they will get away with it. Jim has been an absolute hero and if he were to take legal action for slander and defamy , he would become an even bigger hero

[abhorson]

Chuff, I am a psychiatrist with 23yrs experience, a dual-training CCT in Working Age Adult Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, a Masters in Clinical Psychiatry and I treat truly ill people six days a week. I can spot a credible colleague when I see one, and you are not receiving the expert opinions you are being led to believe.

What are your qualifications?

:joker::joker: That should do it.

[Lex]

Chuff, I am a psychiatrist with 23yrs experience, a dual-training CCT in Working Age Adult Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, a Masters in Clinical Psychiatry and I treat truly ill people six days a week. I can spot a credible colleague when I see one, and you are not receiving the expert opinions you are being led to believe.

What are your qualifications?

Well, i'm no psychiatrist, never have been!...But I do have 84 years worth of general knowledge...and I agree with you that they are there purely for the 'entertainment value', and not to be taken seriously...100% optim...does that count for anything? :spin:

[Lex]

:joker::joker: That should do it.

If you believe that...then you don't know Chuff! :joker:

[chuff me dizzy]

Chuff, I am a psychiatrist with 23yrs experience, a dual-training CCT in Working Age Adult Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, a Masters in Clinical Psychiatry and I treat truly ill people six days a week. I can spot a credible colleague when I see one, and you are not receiving the expert opinions you are being led to believe.

What are your qualifications?

Brain surgeon with a degree in spotting bull****

[abhorson]

All through this thread most could see that they were mainly butt licking opinions from the panel but some would argue until the cows come home just for the fun of it.

[the truth]

Brain surgeon with a degree in spotting bull****

chuff you only turned on jim because he dared to stand up to linda and ask if her mindless hatred slander and bullying of him was anything to do with his mate frank carsons dressing room. he had every right to ask this. she had dragged up the past endlessly,, she had defamed jim endlessly , she had brought up the past and her husband and the fact she was a serial cheater, she dragged it all up. what was jim meant to do sit there 24 hours a day and allow her to slander and verbally abuse him? he has his rights and its high time he used those rights to defend himself against false accusation.

[optimisticcynic]

Well, i'm no psychiatrist, never have been!...But I do have 84 years worth of general knowledge...and I agree with you that they are there purely for the 'entertainment value', and not to be taken seriously...100% optim...does that count for anything? :spin:

Always happy to learn Lex. Learn more from people than books, though the books have helped. Can't wait to see how tonight unfolds. Am hoping Sam or Ollie go, so Luisa and Jim have time to develop a friendship and Lee and Casey push things even further (should make the end of show party awkward with Linda and Jasmine guaranteed to kick off).

[Lex]

Always happy to learn Lex. Learn more from people than books, though the books have helped. Can't wait to see how tonight unfolds. Am hoping Sam or Ollie go, so Luisa and Jim have time to develop a friendship and Lee and Casey push things even further (should make the end of show party awkward with Linda and Jasmine guaranteed to kick off).

Yep..that would be a great scenario...but I doubt either one of those two are in danger?...my guess would be that the bottom three tonight would be Casey, Lee and Luisa?...but we'll see!...i'm off to watch now, so see you later optim! :thumbs:

[optimisticcynic]

Brain surgeon with a degree in spotting bull****

I can tell from the intellectual content of your posts. Either way, your opinion is as important as mine, so we will remain at odds on this issue. Who are you supporting now Linda's out?

[optimisticcynic]

Later Lex.

[smeagol]

What can we expect with an all female panel and two co-presenters who have auto cues for just about everything they say? The panel are probably burning their bras right now.

not all of them one had a dick

[chuff me dizzy]

chuff you only turned on jim because he dared to stand up to linda and ask if her mindless hatred slander and bullying of him was anything to do with his mate frank carsons dressing room. he had every right to ask this. she had dragged up the past endlessly,, she had defamed jim endlessly , she had brought up the past and her husband and the fact she was a serial cheater, she dragged it all up. what was jim meant to do sit there 24 hours a day and allow her to slander and verbally abuse him? he has his rights and its high time he used those rights to defend himself against false accusation.

Truth my little sunbeam with all due respect :kiss: I didnt like Jim before he went in there ,with me being over 21 (cough) I remember him from the New Faces days when he first came on the scene, never,ever liked him ,and the more I saw and read on him over the years I was at the point of really not liking anything about him ,but I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he went in CBB, Im not sure but I think I even joined his fan club on here, I put to one side the nasty digs he was making to the women(never the men) ,I started to have niggley doubts when Lionel said about him asslicking saying "I will cook, I will wash up ,Do you want a cuppa" but the straw that broke the camels back was the night he brought up Lindas dead husband ,in life there should always be a line you never,ever cross no matter what happens ,but Jim chose to cross that line that night,and went downhill in my opinion from that night on ,and that night I realised I had given the benefit of the doubt wrongly ,he WAS the bastard I already knew he was

[chuff me dizzy]

I can tell from the intellectual content of your posts. Either way, your opinion is as important as mine, so we will remain at odds on this issue. Who are you supporting now Linda's out?

Ive supported Ollie from the start, but I am a MASSIVE Nolans fan love them

[Kizzy]

Wrong person kizzy. I never quoted a book.

Ah yes sorry, I'm getting confused with all the rhetoric.
Rachel was there to give her professional opinion not a personal one, I feel that is what she did.

[chuff me dizzy]

chuff you only turned on jim because he dared to stand up to linda and ask if her mindless hatred slander and bullying of him was anything to do with his mate frank carsons dressing room. he had every right to ask this. she had dragged up the past endlessly,, she had defamed jim endlessly , she had brought up the past and her husband and the fact she was a serial cheater, she dragged it all up. what was jim meant to do sit there 24 hours a day and allow her to slander and verbally abuse him? he has his rights and its high time he used those rights to defend himself against false accusation.

Just noticed you use the word SLANDER a few times in this ? when did Linda slander him or anyone ?

[the truth]

Truth my little sunbeam with all due respect :kiss: I didnt like Jim before he went in there ,with me being over 21 (cough) I remember him from the New Faces days when he first came on the scene, never,ever liked him ,and the more I saw and read on him over the years I was at the point of really not liking anything about him ,but I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he went in CBB, Im not sure but I think I even joined his fan club on here, I put to one side the nasty digs he was making to the women(never the men) ,I started to have niggley doubts when Lionel said about him asslicking saying "I will cook, I will wash up ,Do you want a cuppa" but the straw that broke the camels back was the night he brought up Lindas dead husband ,in life there should always be a line you never,ever cross no matter what happens ,but Jim chose to cross that line that night,and went downhill in my opinion from that night on ,and that night I realised I had given the benefit of the doubt wrongly ,he WAS the bastard I already knew he was


but she brought him up? again and again? even dhowing off about her cheating on him multiple times and she dragged up the past with jim before they even entered? so isnt she even more guilty of exploiting her dead husband than jim? jim even apologised because he just wanted to move on. he has every right to defend himself. seriously how would you feel in his shoes with linda going at you 24 hours a day on live tv? she even intimated he moved her to self harming? shes a horrible person. surely he had the right to some form of self defenc didnt he?

[chuff me dizzy]

but she brought him up? again and again? even dhowing off about her cheating on him multiple times and she dragged up the past with jim before they even entered? so isnt she even more guilty of exploiting her dead husband than jim? jim even apologised because he just wanted to move on. he has every right to defend himself. seriously how would you feel in his shoes with linda going at you 24 hours a day on live tv? she even intimated he moved her to self harming? shes a horrible person. surely he had the right to some form of self defenc didnt he?

He was face saving ,it was not an apology, he knew hes dropped a clanger when all the women turned against him so tried to kiss ass to stop himself getting nominated ,I doubt very much Linda was serious when she was talking about cheating on her hubby ,but Brian was HER husband ,if she wanted to talk about him ,then who could stop her, but jim went that extra mile in spite Lets agree to disagree ,I hate him and all he stands for ,and you dont

[the truth]

He was face saving ,it was not an apology, he knew hes dropped a clanger when all the women turned against him so tried to kiss ass to stop himself getting nominated ,I doubt very much Linda was serious when she was talking about cheating on her hubby ,but Brian was HER husband ,if she wanted to talk about him ,then who could stop her, but jim went that extra mile in spite Lets agree to disagree ,I hate him and all he stands for ,and you dont

she was using her dead husband to have a go at jim though.....it was clearly the reason she hated jim. yet the truth of the matter is , jim never did any harm to her or her husband. if she wanted her late husbands memory to remain sacred she shouldnt be dragigng up the bitter past and she certainly shouldnt be cackling and celebrating how much she cheated on him. as for jims apology, who is anyon eto say it was false? he was pushed and he reacted and did so perhaps to show linda the man hater, that she cant go around implying he is corrupt or bad or mean and calling him sexist pig endlessly without him eventually biting back. she has no right to slander him
and he tried to get to the truth of why she was doing this. she spinelessly avoided giving him a genuine answer and thought she could milk votes from the man haters. but he called her bluff and asked was it to do with frank caarsons dressing room. he also didnt mention her husband at all. she did every time. then she used tis to drag her husbands name through the mud herself. just to garner votes and support. she is a contemptible sexist pig. she also needs psychiatric help