Double Standards?
 

John gets a lot of backlash for nominating his best pal in the house. However, last year James nominated his best pal Austin behind his back and the betrayal was completely ignored and he won. At least, John did it face to face. People are way too harsh on him, and classic double standards?? Just like James, John confessed that his nomination was well intended. James's motivation was fake, however, John's quite believable.

Cannot remember James reason for nominating Austin but Austin seriously started to turn nasty.
john nominated Darren in the first week....his mate, for a silly reason. As people have said as a friend he could have had a quiet word instead of putting him up for eviction where he could have lost his place in the house and not been able to do what he went in there to do. John knew what Darren wanted to prove...it wasn't a good move.

During the press task yesterday he was asked about it and he said although it didn't help him...he didn't regret his decision. I think he was lying!!

I don't think John was lying, James nominated Austin after knowing him 3 weeks and it was seen as tough love....John nominated Darren after knowing him years and it was seen as a cold tactical move....if that was the case I would expect someone highly unintelligent to behave in such a badly executed and transparent way....John is not that stupid, he was trying to give Darren a wake up call and he was putting his own reputation at risk in the process. And who knows, with so much stress this year, if not for that spotlight being put on Darren by John, he may have thought it was ok to have one little drink.
John knew what Darren wanted to prove and he could see how amazingly fast he had returned to cigarettes, he must have envisaged a really dangerous situation ahead for Darren and not known how else to shake him up enough to prevent it. No one should under estimate the addictive power of cigarettes and how closely associated they are with alcohol.
And regarding last nights mock conference, was there one person in that room who any of us can respect let alone take advice from....Vanessa Feltz ? We all know how well she managed living in the house, she cracked after a couple of days. At best it was a collection of BOTS audience fodder at worst it was a public lynching for all the housemates.

:clap1::clap1: John has been stitched up like a kipper by BB,the nomination was nothing so hateful to dislike him for,the Tiffany thing he was also blamed for ,people conveniently forgetting several housemates were involved in that,John was the spokesman,the press conference was obviously intended to be aimed solely to have a go at John,who was hardly given a chance to answer properly without getting spoken over by the obnoxious fan bitches,when someone DID pipe up to say it was not all his fault,Feltz cut him off,and he Steph task was a step too far,BB knew he was struggling with Stephs constant Jez talk so the pulled that outmans so much for people saying he would be stuck up Stephs arse now,the fact is people just WANT to find fault in John when in fact he is no worse and much better than the ones left in there.

Totally agree Kazanne....made me angry at the way John was stitched up last night ....his defence was not even given the chance to be heard while Steph was actually praised by Luisa Zissman....not on house mate was treated as badly as John...total stitch up. I found the whole concept of that fake press thing ugly...that should take place after they leave the house not the night before the leave the house and used to sway people's votes...it's dirty and underhanded manipulation by BB

James was just as bad nominating his mate but because he's an attractive male he was allowed to get away with it.

Well said :clap2:

:clap1:

I was stunned by both noms for the friends, I was stunned by Johns nom of Darren, however Darren nommed John a week or so later.
The differences appear to have been straightened out between them and that is good to see as I like them both.

Similarly, I liked both James and Austin,James nom of Austin could have cost him the final week in the house so both noms from friends came at bad times to be fair.

Austin never nommed James.
Those 2 are now great friends and I have a feeling John and Darren will be too once out of the house.

So I hold none of the noms made by all of them against the person nominating.

You're absolutely right! I don't see how it could be described as anything other than a double standard.

I was surprised too Joey but even at the time I thought,he must have a reason for that and in his head he did,he thought he was doing good,I don't understand why people don't see that,he has not sworn at people or been aggressive he has just taken time out from what annoys him,he doesn't scream and shout ,obviously he has done things that annoy people but haven't they all?:shrug:

Can't we use a different term from Double Standards for once? I'm sick of hearing it so often, and we only hear it on BB forums for some reason.

What term do you want? "whats good for the goose is good for the ""it's ok for some but not for others!",:shrug:

I don't get that people can't see that John was the biggest **** stirrer in the house. He even admitted it during the poo task! :joker:

Here for BB17's "Contradictory Paradigm" threads :clap1:

if i hear him call tiff "gurl" one more bloody time I will vomit lava

LT enters his volcanic era .... perched for this iconic event

Better than pissing in the river eh LT?:laugh:

There was a difference between both noms, really.

As rusticgal said, Austin went really nasty and mean...and James was constantly pulling Austin aside and trying to talk to him about it, but Austin ignored it. James felt that Austin needed a real lesson because he kept ignoring the talks. Do I agree with James? NO. I would never have done it but I can understand why he did.

As for Darren, he did not go nasty or mean he just seemded stressed and started up his old habit of smoking. As far as we (the viewers) know, John never talked to Darren about it. The fact that Darren was gobsmacked by the reason of the nom supports that John never said anything to Darren. After one week, because the guy started smoking again John felt he should leave???? This is a good enough reason for a regular housemate but not someone that was supposed to be your buddy. That's why it's different than James, IMO.

That being said, I think it's wasn't that big of a deal and Darren wasn't up and didn't leave and he got his payback with his own nom against John...but, damn, did Darren milk the whole 'wounded' routine for all it's worth. John didn't deserve that.

i thought i read plenty of people thinking James nominating a friend was messed up and calculated game play. there was just more uproar at John doing it.

The forum is rife with double standards this year. Kazanne your right about the John, but Im equally fed up with people dragging up Darrens violence towards past partners,(Tiffany fans especially) when others have been just as bad. I can only find videos of Tiffany hitting people, and much more recently than him. Yet when I suggested that we judge all the house mates equally, (preferably on there behaviour in the house) you should have seen the vitriol I got from Tiffany fans. That was equal to the double standards that are being aimed at John.

Yep,it's been silly on here the way some try to force a fave on people,it actually does the opposite for me,I go straight off someone who Is excused for everything ,give me someone who isn't fake,loud and crude anyday.:wavey:

I second that.