Why is BB letting aggressors get away with serious intimidation
 

People that show extreme aggression like sue and Andrew have, are just as bad as the people that react. If they were warned for unacceptable language and actions, these nasty aggressive barnies would never get off the ground. Are they going to listen when someone gets glassed or badly hurt. Its as if they actively are encouraging it.

The first big injury and the shows closed

:crazy:

Sue's a black woman who raised her voice so I can see why you're calling her aggressive, but how is Andrew aggressive?

You never had a problem with this with Lotan, or Sam.... :shrug:

We don't want more warnings. Seriously Sam, arguments are part of real life. What on earth would be the point in watching BB if they were warned for raising their voices and such. I get that you dislike Andrew and sue, but if those rules were applied to them, they would be applied to everyone and the would be no show at all :umm2:

'Serious intimidation' is such a ridiculous exaggeration too.

:clap: completely agree

So calling an obviously annoyed straight man my darling boy is not serious intimidation and starting arguments with no foundation hoping for a reaction is ok is it. I agree that arguments will happen but deliberate baiting is out of order.

Almost everyone has been aggressive in there. Except Raph, Isabelle and Charlotte.

Are you projecting yourself onto Joe here Sam? Are you that insecure about your sexuality and masculinity that, if you were called darling, you would be seriously intimidated?
If you find that 'seriously aggressive' then... well, I'm speechless

The fact that you cant see my point is worrying

Dont think darling boy is intimidating. Patronising yes.....goading yes but not intimidating.

What's your point? Andrew called a straight man 'darling'. Did such heterophobia against annoyed Joe shake him to the core? Are you suggesting Andrew knew Joe would be too sensitive to be rocked by such a term? Does that justify Joe's reaction?

I agree, it's shocking how much Sam, Ellie, Joe and Tom get away with

How fragile

I really don't remember tibb ever being this sensitive. What's changed. Nothing serious has happened since fight night, calm down.

I would say goading and intimidating amounts to the same thing...you are saying things in an attempt to get a reaction.:shrug:

Andrew didn't say it because he was straight, he said it because Joe was being a precious snowflake and over-sensitive and Andrew wanted to make a point out of that. It was passive aggressive of anything, Joe was closer to actual aggression.

Both gay and straight men are allowed to call both gay and straight men 'my darling boy'. Sure there was a hidden motive when Andrew used it, but like get over it, my darling boy.

If we're being fair Chanelle, and Kayleigh should be ejected.

Lotan should've been given a final warning for Fight Night, as should've Ellie and Deborah.

Andrew should've got a warning for his thing with Raph yesterday, but nothing more.

I can't comment on Sue's moment as I haven't watched it yet.

Joe should be on his final warning for getting up in Rebecca and Andrew's faces in those arguments.

Tom is on his final warning which is fair.

And I do think that Hannah maybe should've got a warning for restraining Raph yesterday.

So tbf it's not just Sue and Andrew that have gotten away with things imo.

Winding people up is a valid strategy on BB.

We wouldn't have had BB6 or Rex Newmark at all if you took that strategy away from BB.

What's his sexual orientation got to do with it?

Sorry why are we encouraging more pointless warnings?

Sexy Rexy now there was a good housemate.they don't make them like that anymore.

Rex was hilarious :joker:

He was an iconic Housemate for BB9 for his baiting style.

If Sampvt's rules were put in place for BB9, Rex Newmark would've been ejected in that series.

I'd swap you for scrabble :laugh3:

I love that comment.:joker:

But ironically he would've got a warning for that under Sampvt's rules that they'd apply to BB.