Originally Posted by kefln (Post 7138031)

Its not likely that Mathew, a HM who was there, doesn't know?

Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 7138030)

With respect however, we should and can only go on what we see,it is up to BB to show us the warnings when given and they haven't shown us Ashleigh getting one.

I stand by what I see,not from waht others say or wnat to be the case.Nothing can operate properly like that.

It is undeniable, 2 threats were made to other housemates,not to theri faces but both made in anger and likely frustration too.

Helen as to Ashleigh and smashing her face in, then also Ashleigh in a same scenario of anger and frustration as to Christopher, re- smashing his face into a mirror.

Now if one deserves a warning,then so does the other on balnce I say, we know one has been given, we have no idea as yet if a warning was given for the other incident.
Until that is confirmed, then we are right to assume she didn't get one while Helen did.
As warnings are usually eventually shown to the viewers.

It isn't about praising one and running the other down,I have said on here Helen fully deserved her warning for it,that you cannot go around threatening people,however I equally believe Ashleigh deserves one for her incident too.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 7138054)

It's not likely that he does know.

Outside of BB and Helen, why and how would Matthew know and none of the others?

Originally Posted by kefln (Post 7138019)

And you know for sure that Mathew lied...because...no...you don't...because BB hasn't confirmed the number of warnings that Helen has received.

So you are trashing Mathew, trying to make a point about him being a disrespectful bitter person?

Originally Posted by kefln (Post 7138056)

And that is your right.

However, Helen has received a formal warning for bad behaviour. She was told by BB that she was being monitored and further action would be taken if something similar happens again. Fast forward a few weeks and Helen makes a statement about smashing someones face in. BB has no choice but to call her up on it.

A person on probation can not be compared to a person with no prior history.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 7138054)

It's not likely that he does know.

Outside of BB and Helen, why and how would Matthew know and none of the others?

Originally Posted by kefln (Post 7138061)

But you don't know that he doesn't know. You are guessing that he doesn't know. And you don't know what the others know, or don't know.

He could be completely correct, or totally wrong.

Originally Posted by kefln (Post 7138061)

But you don't know that he doesn't know. You are guessing that he doesn't know. And you don't know what the others know, or don't know.

He could be completely correct, or totally wrong.

Originally Posted by kefln (Post 7138031)

Its not likely that Mathew, a HM who was there, doesn't know?

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 7138060)

It's double standards no matter how it's dressed up.

Either it's against the rules to make such physical threats or it isn't. It can't go both ways. Both of them said it in an angry, pissed off manner. There is no difference.

Originally Posted by kefln (Post 7138083)

Actually there is a difference. In fact there is an important difference.

Legally and socially most of what we say isn't taken literally. Context and tone are what allows co-existence.

The removal of context and tone is one of the key reasons that secondhand information causes so many problems. Its tainted by bias.

Originally Posted by kefln (Post 7138083)

Actually there is a difference. In fact there is an important difference.

Legally and socially most of what we say isn't taken literally. Context and tone are what allows co-existence.

The removal of context and tone is one of the key reasons that secondhand information causes so many problems. Its tainted by bias.

Originally Posted by adamski94 (Post 7138081)

I find it funny how out of all the evicted housemates he was the only one informed

Originally Posted by kefln (Post 7138094)

And are you the "only one informed" about what the other HM's do or don't know.

I think what you mean to say is that he's the only one that has made comment. Whether he's correct, or not, we don't know.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 7138090)

There was no difference in how either of them said it. Both of them said it because they were pissed off. Neither was anywhere close to actually doing anything.

If Helen had screamed it at Ashleigh and threatened her like the Matthew incident you'd have a point. But that's not what happened. In fact the opposite, Ashleigh said it directly to him. Are threats not banned in BB? We're not talking about legally, we're talking about Big Brother, where the rules used to be pretty clear.

But they also pick and choose when to punish nomination discussion so I'm really not surprised.

Originally Posted by adamski94 (Post 7138103)

Im sure if it really happened ofcom would of went to town on them when they had complaints

Originally Posted by kefln (Post 7138113)

Again going back to the formal warning. Helen has been warned that she is being monitored. Her past behaviour was too aggressive. Anything that she says has to be taken more seriously.

People make idle threats, and overblown statements, all the time. But on a show like BB, in a working environment, in a school, in a social group, if you have been warned about your behaviour and language in the past, you will be treated harsher for any lapses.

Originally Posted by adamski94 (Post 7138103)

Im sure if it really happened ofcom would of went to town on them when they had complaints

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 7138128)

You're missing the point. Threatening behaviour is not tolerated, previous warning or not.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 7138128)

But then the rules state housemates are forbidden from discussing nominations and they receive food and drink every night despite living on "rations" so I'm really not surprised.

Originally Posted by kefln (Post 7138159)

I think you are missing the point.

How many fights/arguments was Helen involved in before getting her formal warning?

Helen was "let off" over and over again, until she took it too far.

By your own argument Helen should have been kicked out weeks ago.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 7138136)

I'm not sure it's ofcom's business. Aren't they only there tot enforce things that can and can't be broadcast? It's not down to them to check what happens in there if it isn't shown on TV.