[Jodie.]

Originally Posted by Epic.

There's being vile and entertaining and then there's just vile. The Shahbaz stuff was just vile and there was no one to even support during it so I struggle to form any cohesive entertainment value out of it.

And honestly, I never got the 'Everyone in BB6 is nasty' argument that's quite common. The only outright nasty people I can think of were Lesley, Saskia, Maxwell, Derek and Makosi (and Craig in the later stages but this is only about the first week). Besides that, the easiest way to compare the cast is just by saying they're really over the top. When putting it side by side with BB7, I found BB6's first week arguments much more panto than watching Shahbaz mentally destroy himself followed by being isolated and harassed by most of the house. I don't even know why BB7 is winning the poll. It may have provided 'talking points' but if that's going to be used as an argument it kind of needs quality to back it up. It's a very quantity over quality approach to have and I don't even recall anything else of importance happening in the first week apart from messy Shahbaz.

I agree with the first bit in bold. Eg I found Katie Hopkins vile yet I thought she was extremely entertaining, and Helen was vile but I didn’t find most of her arguments entertaining. There’s no definite answer to this because people have different bars of what entertainment is and people have different limits on what is vile and not vile; some could argue that Shahbaz brought some of the isolation upon himself, hence not thinking the whole situation was too vile.

And honestly, I never got the 'Everyone in BB6 is nasty' argument that's quite common. The only outright nasty people I can think of were Lesley, Saskia, Maxwell, Derek and Makosi (and Craig in the later stages but this is only about the first week).

Okay sorry but the people you listed were the most entertaining in BB6, so doesn’t this prove my point that being vile doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad thing?