Am I meant to care he's got a few Z List mates?

It wasn't free at all. People boasted about voting multiple times at 50p a go.
They spent far more than the domain for this site cost.

Why? How much was the domain?

Domains are dirt cheap. Mine costs 50p per month.

I didn't say it was different. If this is your campaign to get Danny out then fair play to you. I just think it's a tad weak, based on premise of this thread title anyway. Danny clearly doesn't know these people that well, maybe meeting them once or twice or tweeting them but never actually meeting. Celebrities do that all the time. I think to say he it's fixed for him based on all the brief "connections" is a bit absurd though.

Last year, Zoe used to date Anthony Hutton. Does that mean she was fixed to win because she had a connection? Oh wait. Many housemates have had previous connections before, meting each other at previous auditions and such.

However, I do find his tweets he has made in the past to be vile and horrible. But that has nothing to do with meeting Emma before, or being friends with Victor, or the fact that Emma wants him to win because they are secretly best buds.

Also, Emma was more likely told by her bosses to say that Rylan was near the studios when he left to rehearse to stop conspiracies. I doubt she would have lied on her own accord.

But good luck in your campaign. :)

what a joke lmfao fame wannabe

I have said numerous times that the connections part of the site is the weakest. The tweets are the killer. They make the site worthwhile.

The reason people think there is a fix is because Danny is still there after numerous violent outbursts.

Ok but the premise of this thread is about his connections.

People have had violent outbursts many times in BB. Like Charley throwing water over numerous people in BB8.

The reason Danny hasn't been removed is because he hasn't done anything to warrant removal. Yes, he has got angry and in someone's personal space, but that happens a lot in BB. Nadia/Jason rings a bell.

I would definitely stick to the tweets if you want to get him out. Because the "connections" and the "fix" aren't very strong.

Although, people may rebut that by only judging with what they have seen in the house :shrug:

Can you think of a time that someone has threatened to hit someone and been allowed to stay in?

This whole thread is an embarrassment and quite frankly I'm perplexed by this witch-hunt of Danny of all people. Like, he's one of the most vanilla and bland housemates to ever enter the house...how can he stir up this much hatred in people?

I get the points people are making but still...it's Danny. He's just...there. Even though I've grown to like him now he still just...exists :shrug: there's not really much to him. Of all the housemates that could provoke someone to create a website dedicated to tearing them apart it's one of the most middle of the road characters on a series that barely anyone is watching. I don't know whether it's more hilarious, disturbing or embarrassing. Or all three.

I disagree with you.
I find it insulting to one's intelligence to actually BUY into the BS that Danny is trying to sell by the character he's trying to portray until his real self surfaces when he's put in his place in an argument. That clown is a fraud in my opinion.

Have you read the tweets he wrote?

lol if you say so

I don't think anyone's buying into it per se, especially not over the last few days, but what is actually the problem with people being fake and putting on a persona on a game show? Like, what's the issue? The main issue is whether or not that person is interesting, entertaining and provides us with stuff to talk about as viewers. Whether or not it's genuine is pretty irrelevant to be honest.

Yes, but what housemates tweet, say and do either in their private life or professional life is of no relevance as to what they do inside the Big Brother house, which is the platform on which we as viewers are supposed to judge them on. What Danny or Marc or Nick has tweeted before the show, outside of the show, is completely irrelevant. Just as whether Harry or Helen was or is a prostitute is irrelevant, just as whether or not Chloe shat in someone's shoe is irrelevant, the list goes on. We're supposed to judge them on their time in the house on a blank slate, digging up dirt on housemates personal lives outside of the television show that they're appearing on is obsessive, unnecessary, irrelevant and really quite petty.

What if their tweets totally contradict the persona they take on in the big brother house?

What if danny acts like a white knight in the house, protecting the women and saying he won't allow bullying, but tweets that he hopes chloe goodman is bullied in the street and fat women in clubs should stick to their own kind and not try it on with him?

I answered that in the other quoted post I replied to. It's a gameshow, housemates are perfectly entitled to fake a persona if they so wish and I don't see what the problem is with it. The real issue of debate here is whether the personas housemates create are interesting, entertaining and/or contribute anything to the show. If they don't, then they're pointless, but if they do...then there's nothing wrong with it.

I can tell you the connection, Danny wants to be famous and he happens to be friends with Ricci and thus gets invited to events or BB meet ups. If he's friends with an ex hm there is a good chance he could have been a guest at a wrap party even so why is it unfathomable he's had a chat with people?

If it was this massive conspiracy as you imply they'd have hidden it better and given him a shining edit which they haven't.

I think you're grasping at straws

Where are these rules stated that we must only judge them on what we see in the house?

Does it apply to the celebrity series, where we may have known the contestant for 30 years before they went in? Are we meant to disregard that 30 years?

Why shouldn't we consider all information before voting to give someone £100,000?

If twitter had existed during BB4, and we found tweets where cameron said he loved satan and visited prossies, would that have been irrelevant?

Personallyme, it's like, if I'm going to spend 60 hours (at least!) watching you and it turns out that everything I thought was true about you isn't, thanks for wasting my time?

But it's not wasted time, if they've entertained you then you've spent that time watching BB regardless.

If they faded into the background then the edits didn't focus on them and didn't waste your time anyway.

When you put BB into the number of viewing hours it's ALL a waste of time. :joker:

It's the unwritten rule of the show, I mean it's pretty much common sense. What's the point in watching the highlights or even in the show existing if we're going to decide who our favourites are and who should win based on the housemates personal lives? We don't have cameras following them for years before they enter the house, it's completely irrelevant. The premise of the show is to watch a bunch of strangers inside a glorified television studio for a couple of months and to see how they interact and judge each of them based upon that. Their jobs, friends, families, private lives are all totally separate from their actions on the show itself and none of it is relevant when it comes to judging who is or who isn't a good housemate (note, the clue is in the name, housemate inside the house, not person outside the show).

Celebrity Big Brother is an entirely different ballgame, but even then I would hope that most people judge each of the housemates on a blank slate based upon what they do inside the house, I certainly do. That is, again, the entire point of the show and putting them in there. The civilian run is different, we don't know them and there's no reason to not judge them all on an equal pedestal. Fishing for outside information on contestants on a reality show is quite frankly just obsessive and pathetic and proves that some people take television way too seriously.

The £100,000 should go to the housemate who has contributed the most to each individual series. It's not (or at least it shouldn't be) a Mr Nice Person contest.

As for the Cameron question, yes, yes it would have been irrelevant. I haven't seen BB4 but heard he was boring, so that's more grounds on which to not deserve to win than anything he believes in or did/does outside of the show.

On one final separate note, what on earth is the problem with visiting prostitutes? :umm2:

I believe he used that example as IIRC Cameron was some sort of bible preaching priest. :hee:

Indeed. Who cares whether it's fake or not? If you enjoy watching them in the minuscule bubble that is a Big Brother series compared to your/their entire life, then so be it. Whether they faked it all on a gameshow or not is pretty irrelevant. Either they brought a lot to the show or they didn't, that's more important than whether it was genuine or not. I couldn't care less how they act outside of the show, the cameras aren't there before or after so it isn't relevant in the slightest.

That is up to you.

But why can't I, and others, choose to include other information when we decide who to vote for.

Who made you the boss?

No one. :umm2: He's giving his opinion on a public forum.