Everyone turned on Marcus Siavash and Fred (who didnt realise they would punish the whole house) but Charlie who wakes everyone up gets no such venom...thats the hypocrisy in the house we dont like

Oh don't stop now, I'm agog! Please enlighten me, what is the analogue to this point in British Law. I should point out that there is no Brtish Law on defamation. Scottish Law and English Law are radically different in this matter.

Now look.... :laugh3::laugh3::laugh3: I post in good humour, drawing humorous attention to intemperance. You diagnose UPPER CASE as OTT. I don't, it simply adds tone to a post to show where stress should be placed when reading it. BB is a humorous, tongue in cheek production and violent dislike to any HM is, in my view, inappropriate.

It's quite obvious that they would get punished; they were breaking the rules which always leads to getting punished.

The no venom bit I will agree with you on though, but I do think that punishing the whole house is worse than being loud at night.

Someones got the theasaurus out lol

Oh my goodness are you a hypocrite! Yesterday you had the cheek to attack both my stated profession and education because I used capital letters when I pointed out that Charlie had lied. And today you defend them? You attack people who have a strong dislike for a housemate while you are an absolute rabid fan who attacks everyone who says anything against Charlie. Really, you are too much.

I dont think they realised til it was too late they would punish the whole house, they werent purposely being annoying to others but I take ya point. It just grates on me that whatever certain people do in the house it just gets laughed off, whilst others will get all guns blazing over very little

Um... when did I say anything about Freddie not liking it? I was pointing it out because it was a very asinine thing to do. And that would be true regardless of who did it. Yelling while people is sleeping is just not cool. It is rude.

I mentioned Freddie because if he was the one doing the yelling nana impersonation while others were sleeping, David and Lisa would be complaining instead of laughing.

He thinks he's such a joker... not.

On a separate note you've moved up in the world very quickly VickyJ!:tongue:

For the record, you didn't point out that Charlie had lied, you accused Charlie of lying.

When this forum maintains threads that start as the OP in this tread (http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...php?tid=117670)
does. Then I reserve the right to defend any HM when a slur is posted. There is a distinct difference between aplying emphasis through upper case in the flow of a sentence, and if you look at my use you will see that the capitalisation is not an attack in any way. Your use as a freestanding expletive (WHAT A LIAR! as I reacll) is completely different.

Stick to positive support, rather than gratuitous attacks on HMs. You will see that I have offered similar suppport to the housemate formerly known as Halfwit, to Bea, to Noirin when they have been gratuitously attacked.

Did your mother ever tell you, if you can't say somthing nice, say nothing?

English and Scottish law is sufficiently similar on the particular point in question for the description to hold, I think, although despite my knowledge of these matters from my past career I would be happy to be corrected on the point by an expert.

The analogue is as follows: in a defamation case, a person can only have been defamed if the words involved tended to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; so if someone has already been convicted or recognised to have behaved in a way equal to or worse than that contained within the words which the claim relates to then an action for defamation is unlikely to succeed. So, to illustrate, if a journalist were to write a story accusing Ronnie Biggs of robbing a jewellery store in 1962 it is unlikely that Mr Biggs would be able to succeed in an action for defamation, even if the story was completely untrue, since he is in fact a convicted robber and former fugitive from justice. The accusation would not further lower him in the estimation of right-thinking people.

I am sure the analogue is quite clear. I hope that helps.

On a further note, the capitalisation was merely a part of the over the top reaction I identified. I also mentioned your "emotive language".

On a final note, I would not say your posts in this thread have been in a particularly "good humour". You seem rather tetchy, actually.

Me too :thumbs:

:laugh:

I am assuming that is an insult.

EDIT: The post this was in response to appears to have been deleted.

Yes and I will say it again because the footage from Big Brother has proved it:

CHARLIE IS A LIAR. Wait... maybe that wasn't over the top enough, how about this?

CHARLIE IS A LIAR! <--- see? I added an exclamation point! Hmm... but that isn't quite over the top enough yet. Let me try again:

CHARLIE IS A LIAR

Ah yes... much better. My only regret is that I don't know how to make it blink. And for the record, I backed up my assertion that Charlie is a liar with specific instances in which he lied. I'm sorry that you disagree that Charlie is a liar and don't like it when people say that Charlie is a liar but everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is mine. If you are still curious, I first suspected that Charlie is a liar when he said he had seen Kenneth's letter from Karly even when there was no letter. Since then I have been paying attention and have seen several instances which have also shown that Charlie is a liar.

Now as far as you are concerned, you repeatedly attack people on this forum. Even if I had never seen your rants on this forum, your karma rating along would give me a clue that you don't play well with others. So before you question what my mother did or did not teach me, perhaps you should examine your own methods of communication.

lol I know :tongue:

And to clarify...he didnt throw oil on a bed, that was rodrigo, I got mixed up. A certain poster took massive offense at an honest mistake and this is what has set the huge arguement off :rolleyes:

In fairness to you, it never takes much to set that person off. :wink:

It was more the nature of the post in response than the taking of offence, but yeah. :tongue:

No thats what i think of Charlie

Lightening the mood a little:colour:

I see. Thank you for taking the trouble to clarify that. :wink:

No probs:kiss:

Lighten up a bit, he's only having a laugh.

I think what The_Long_Run is getting angry about is the fact you jump on Charlies back when he annoys people in a bedroom for awhile, but when Marcus Siavash and Freddie act like twats for 3 days everybody think its hilarious.

The_Long_Run didnt mention Marcus Fred and The Vash

:rolleyes:

Charlie is a prick.

I like the other three, yet I still said they were wrong for losing the others the food. So if that is indeed why OP took offence, then there was no need for it. But he didnt mention it, so I doubt thats it.

Nowt to do with you anyways.

Personally, I wouldn't get too worked up over Charlie's behaviour. I didn't think it was very funny but that is not because I thought he was committing some terrible offence.