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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Well said Millicent... welcome to TiBB.

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

This

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.

Me neither.:conf:

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.

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?

"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.

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

EXACTLY Kizzy !!!

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:

'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?

Totally agree chuff, well said

:worship:

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: