[Amy Jade]

Am I reading this right? £4k for a few scores...such an idiot.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

Am I reading this right? £4k for a few scores...such an idiot.

Nope, he was going to buy the score, umbongo and something else..then changed his mind after being whinged at..by the very person that grabbed 5 grand at the first chance she got.
Bloody hypocrite.

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Nope, he was going to buy the score, umbongo and something else..then changed his mind after being whinged at..by the very person that grabbed 5 grand at the first chance she got.
Bloody hypocrite.

Glad Chloe talked him out of it

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

Glad Chloe talked him out of it

Aye, so am I, reckon if has cost her the win

More the fact that she has whinged at everyone else who dares to even think of spending any f the cash...then grabs it for herself
Selfish girl.

[ItWasJustBanter]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

Glad Chloe talked him out of it

Shouted him out of it more like. She's vile mate.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

A mess

[abhorson]

No. After (going home Friday) Myrtle moaned about it, he cancelled it. The Chloe 5k is history!!

Another bad woman player bites the dust. Still, take solace all feminists. We have had Kate Lawler, Nadia Almada?, Rachel Rice, Sophie Reade, Josie Gibson and Helen Wood as winners. Not as bad a ratio as you think!

[jessicadanielle]

Originally Posted by abhorson

No. After (going home Friday) Myrtle moaned about it, he cancelled it. The Chloe 5k is history!!

Another bad woman player bites the dust. Still, take solace all feminists. Wem have had Kate Lawler, Nadia Almada?, Rachel Rice, Sophie Reade, Josie Gibson and Helen Wood as winners. Not as bad a ratio as you think!

The fact that you so irrelevantly mentioned gender is probably why some people think the Chloe hate is fuelled by sexism. Fortunately I don't think it is for most people...

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by jessicadanielle

The fact that you so irrelevantly mentioned gender is probably why some people think the Chloe hate is fuelled by sexism. Fortunately I don't think it is for most people...

No it's not sexist, I dislike Danny Weazel equally as much as I dislike Chloe.

[Pete.]

Originally Posted by jessicadanielle

The fact that you so irrelevantly mentioned gender is probably why some people think the Chloe hate is fuelled by sexism. Fortunately I don't think it is for most people...

[Pete.]

Originally Posted by abhorson

No. After (going home Friday) Myrtle moaned about it, he cancelled it. The Chloe 5k is history!!

Another bad woman player bites the dust. Still, take solace all feminists. We have had Kate Lawler, Nadia Almada?, Rachel Rice, Sophie Reade, Josie Gibson and Helen Wood as winners. Not as bad a ratio as you think!

Not when Craig, Brian D, Cameron, Anthony, Pete, Brian B, Aaron, Luke, Sam, Jack, Mark, Bez, Alex, Paddy, Julian, Rylan, Jim, Gary, Paul, John and Brian D again provide a ratio of 21:12 - overwhelming male winners

[mimosveta]

Originally Posted by abhorson

Another bad woman player bites the dust. Still, take solace all feminists. We have had Kate Lawler, Nadia Almada?, Rachel Rice, Sophie Reade, Josie Gibson and Helen Wood as winners. Not as bad a ratio as you think!

You know, I'd rather have 5 worthy people as finalists than 5 women. But I'm not getting either, so I'm pissed.

Then again, real comfort to feminists is that out of all male housemates, not one was a decent person. Girls at least had Sarah, Jade, Sam and Harry, maybe even Adjoa (she was in for far too short to tell, I didn't enjoy her being christian, but I liked how she creeped everyone out talking about poosey

Real solace to feminists is that these girls weren't backstabbing mess, if girls have fixed their attitude towards other women, half a fight is done. Chloe being disloyal is hardly a dent compared what those men in there are like.

[Josy]

No he never.

[Amy Jade]

I wouldn't be worried if he had taken £4000 in prize money for himself tbh, that is cold hard cash but for football results

[Pete.]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

I wouldn't be worried if he had taken £4000 in prize money for himself tbh, that is cold hard cash but for football results

I'm surprised BB didn't say no, it is outside world information after all (but then again they don't care anymore)

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

I wouldn't be worried if he had taken £4000 in prize money for himself tbh, that is cold hard cash but for football results

..yeah, this is it for me as well Amy and why not all of their 'offers' have been the same ...did he get the score btw..?...I would have been evil BB and given him some old/last year's score and said, oh I never said recent ones/ha 2....(sorry for the rush/work..)....

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..yeah, this is it for me as well Amy and why not all of their 'offers' have been the same ...did he get the score btw..?...I would have been evil BB and given him some old/last year's score and said, oh I never said recent ones/ha 2....(sorry for the rush/work..)....

No, apparently Chloe talked him out of it.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

No, apparently Chloe talked him out of it.

...well done Chloe, looking out for that winner and pointing out their selfishness...what a gal, eh Amy......I seriously wish her luck with her £5000....(you have a good day....)...

[downthechippie]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..yeah, this is it for me as well Amy and why not all of their 'offers' have been the same ...did he get the score btw..?...I would have been evil BB and given him some old/last year's score and said, oh I never said recent ones/ha 2....(sorry for the rush/work..)....

The way I see it is that BB can take away from the prize fund (because Chloe and Sam were talking when they were told not to), and some housemates were making really stupid purchases (Joel with the £2,500 pizza, Jack speculated about spending £4000 on football results, but decided not to). Spending £100 on a suitcase.

Now these purchases and BB taking away from the prize fund are all REPLACEABLE. The housemates are given opportunities to top up the prize fund to the original £150,000.

BUT. Chloe's £5000 (and anyone else who takes cash to spend OUTSIDE the house) will ALWAYS be taken into account, so the prize fund will only reach £145,000.

So I believe that anything spent in the house can be replaced. Any cash to be collected on the OUTSIDE will not be replaced.

That's what I think happens in these situations.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't this stuff happen in previous years, and didn't BB always get the prize fund topped up, even though stupid things were bought in the house?

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by downthechippie

The way I see it is that BB can take away from the prize fund (because Chloe and Sam were talking when they were told not to), and some housemates were making really stupid purchases (Joel with the £2,500 pizza, Jack speculated about spending £4000 on football results, but decided not to). Spending £100 on a suitcase.

Now these purchases and BB taking away from the prize fund are all REPLACEABLE. The housemates are given opportunities to top up the prize fund to the original £150,000.

BUT. Chloe's £5000 (and anyone else who takes cash to spend OUTSIDE the house) will ALWAYS be taken into account, so the prize fund will only reach £145,000.

So I believe that anything spent in the house can be replaced. Any cash to be collected on the OUTSIDE will not be replaced.

That's what I think happens in these situations.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't this stuff happen in previous years, and didn't BB always get the prize fund topped up, even though stupid things were bought in the house?

I would agree with you.

[bots]

so something that is important to Chloe is justified, while something that is important to Jack is not?

We all have different methods of identifying what is important to us, the success or failure of Jacks football team is very important to him. Double standards

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

so something that is important to Chloe is justified, while something that is important to Jack is not?

We all have different methods of identifying what is important to us, the success or failure of Jacks football team is very important to him. Double standards

..it really isn't like that though and not double standards at all...yeah, football scores may be important to Jack and I agree, if something is important to a person then it has equal importance to anything else to someone else..but his knowing the football scores was only him knowing them right now as opposed to when he got out so he's not giving anything up whereas Chloe would have been giving the £5000 up completely...he still gets his football scores anyway, doesn't he....

[bots]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..it really isn't like that though and not double standards at all...yeah, football scores may be important to Jack and I agree, if something is important to a person then it has equal importance to anything else to someone else..but his knowing the football scores was only him knowing them right now as opposed to when he got out so he's not giving anything up whereas Chloe would have been giving the £5000 up completely...he still gets his football scores anyway, doesn't he....

you are still devaluing something that is important to jack. It doesnt matter whether something is for instant gratification or not. It is important to jack

Chloe has been an absolute bitch about the money all week, that is why people are shouting hypocrisy. She has continually chastised Jack, while only thinking of herself. Jack is a much kinder person than Chloe will ever be.

[Amy Jade]

Ammi isn't devaluing anything, she makes a valid point. Chloe took a one off offer of 5k, to spend how she likes. Jack wanted to use it to find out scores he could know by friday.

£5000 could pay for so much, I wouldn't blame any of them for taking it

[bots]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

Ammi isn't devaluing anything, she makes a valid point. Chloe took a one off offer of 5k, to spend how she likes. Jack wanted to use it to find out scores he could know by friday.

£5000 could pay for so much, I wouldn't blame any of them for taking it

again, you are making value judgements based on its worth to you. You are not jack. What is important to him, should be given equal standing as anything Chloe decides is of value.