[Seraphim]

Originally Posted by jet

Walking away and ignoring anger is not the best way to deal with it as the anger becomes bottled up. Sooner or later the person will explode, do something inappropriate or once again turn to drink or drugs to cope with destructive emotions.

Who says? I recently read an anger management book written by a prominent psychologist which advocated these very techniques for dealing with anger. It said that research has shown that bottling up rage does not lead to an explosion and that in fact the best way to handle it is to allow it to dissipate naturally.

A violent man who has beaten his wife, threatened to beat up someone inappropriately (as in the case of Linda's husband - what happened to the law dealing with theft?) and still uses violent words as a way to deal with situations can curb his instincts to use his fists and if so that is a good thing - but can that instinct really ever 'go away'? No - because Jim now uses passive - aggressiveness to deal with situations and that is a classic switch -over coping mechanism.

He is not a violent man just because you think he is. He was violent according to one of his ex-wives 25 years ago. Since then, there has been no incidence of violence come to light. As far as the incident described in this thread...

‘Jim blew his top when Linda’s husband was caught. He was playing up the road and he came down and went ballistic. He got right up to him and wanted to beat him up. He was yelling, “No one steals from my mates”. Linda and others got the two apart"

If Jim had gone right up to someone then he had the opportunity to sock him one. This description doesn't say he socked him. It doesn't even say that Jim made any physical threats. We don't know why the person who reported the incident said that Jim wanted to beat him up. That might have been an exaggeration, or a mistaken idea formed by an onlooker. It might have been the truth, but you don't know and neither do I because we weren't there. Again, this incident happened about 20 years ago.

He could have taken Linda aside and asked for a quiet word. He could have asked her what the problem was in a non - angry, quiet way and listened to her answer without interrupting. She would have got it off her chest and he would feel good for doing the right thing.Then they could perhaps have been able to move on.

He has tried this sort of thing. We have seen it on the program. Linda does not want to engage with him, or let it go, or discuss it for obvious reasons (i.e. exposing her husband's misdeed). Jim obviously suspected that this incident was at the root of the problem, but out of deference to both her feelings and respect for the dead he chose not to push it or discuss it with any other housemate or in the diary room.

Walking away, ignoring her, sniping back at her and interrupting her (all classic passive - aggressive behaviour) only made the frustration in Linda worse and the vicious circle continued. There is only one way then it could have come to a head - Jim losing his cool and slipping up and that is indeed what happened.

No it is not what happened. Jim didn't lose his cool. He said to Luisa, in response to her asking what the issue was, that she needed to ask Linda.. to ask her about Frank Carson's dressing room. That's just a fact, and he obviously would not have anticipated that Linda would make such an issue of it. Any reasonable person would have simply explained to Luisa what had happened, or said she didn't want to discuss it. Instead she deliberately made it into an enormous drama by faking an over-emotional melt-down in order to get everyone on her side yet again. As far as Jim being passive aggressive in response to her overt hatred, manipulative behaviour and nastiness: give me Jim every time. I cannot wait to see the back of that Linda Nolan.