[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kefln

Its not likely that Mathew, a HM who was there, doesn't know?

It's not likely that he does know.

Outside of BB and Helen, why and how would Matthew know and none of the others?

[kefln]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

With respect however, we should and can only go on what we see,it is up to BB to show us the warnings when given and they haven't shown us Ashleigh getting one.

I stand by what I see,not from waht others say or wnat to be the case.Nothing can operate properly like that.

It is undeniable, 2 threats were made to other housemates,not to theri faces but both made in anger and likely frustration too.

Helen as to Ashleigh and smashing her face in, then also Ashleigh in a same scenario of anger and frustration as to Christopher, re- smashing his face into a mirror.

Now if one deserves a warning,then so does the other on balnce I say, we know one has been given, we have no idea as yet if a warning was given for the other incident.
Until that is confirmed, then we are right to assume she didn't get one while Helen did.
As warnings are usually eventually shown to the viewers.

It isn't about praising one and running the other down,I have said on here Helen fully deserved her warning for it,that you cannot go around threatening people,however I equally believe Ashleigh deserves one for her incident too.

And that is your right.

However, Helen has received a formal warning for bad behaviour. She was told by BB that she was being monitored and further action would be taken if something similar happens again. Fast forward a few weeks and Helen makes a statement about smashing someones face in. BB has no choice but to call her up on it.

A person on probation can not be compared to a person with no prior history.

[Marsh.]

It's double standards no matter how it's dressed up.

Either it's against the rules to make such physical threats or it isn't. It can't go both ways. Both of them said it in an angry, pissed off manner. There is no difference.

[kefln]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

It's not likely that he does know.

Outside of BB and Helen, why and how would Matthew know and none of the others?

But you don't know that he doesn't know. You are guessing that he doesn't know. And you don't know what the others know, or don't know.

He could be completely correct, or totally wrong.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by kefln

And you know for sure that Mathew lied...because...no...you don't...because BB hasn't confirmed the number of warnings that Helen has received.

So you are trashing Mathew, trying to make a point about him being a disrespectful bitter person?

I wouldn't take Mathews word on anything to do with Helen,he has proved on BBBOTS just how much he hates her,of course he will say stuff to put her in a bad light

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by kefln

And that is your right.

However, Helen has received a formal warning for bad behaviour. She was told by BB that she was being monitored and further action would be taken if something similar happens again. Fast forward a few weeks and Helen makes a statement about smashing someones face in. BB has no choice but to call her up on it.

A person on probation can not be compared to a person with no prior history.

A bit selective with respect, threatening someone a first or 10+th time is still threatening them and cannot be excused lightly.
She maybe wouldn't warrant a final warning but a warning she should have got in fairness to Christopher if no one else,who she made the threat against.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

It's not likely that he does know.

Outside of BB and Helen, why and how would Matthew know and none of the others?

Exactly, spot on.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by kefln

But you don't know that he doesn't know. You are guessing that he doesn't know. And you don't know what the others know, or don't know.

He could be completely correct, or totally wrong.

Same as you are guessing,none of us know for sure,but it's highly likely BB would NOT have let it get to 15,pfft

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kefln

But you don't know that he doesn't know. You are guessing that he doesn't know. And you don't know what the others know, or don't know.

He could be completely correct, or totally wrong.

Hence why I said "not likely". Read what I say properly.

We're all "guessing" without proof either way.

But you haven't answered my question, how likely is it that outside of Helen and BB only Matthew knows? Because he's the only housemate to even try to mention a number.

He also has a history of lying from being bitter.

How many ex housemates and only Matthew has brought it up?

[Denver]

Originally Posted by kefln

Its not likely that Mathew, a HM who was there, doesn't know?

I find it funny how out of all the evicted housemates he was the only one informed

[kefln]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

It's double standards no matter how it's dressed up.

Either it's against the rules to make such physical threats or it isn't. It can't go both ways. Both of them said it in an angry, pissed off manner. There is no difference.

Actually there is a difference. In fact there is an important difference.

Legally and socially most of what we say isn't taken literally. Context and tone are what allows co-existence.

The removal of context and tone is one of the key reasons that secondhand information causes so many problems. Its tainted by bias.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by kefln

Actually there is a difference. In fact there is an important difference.

Legally and socially most of what we say isn't taken literally. Context and tone are what allows co-existence.

The removal of context and tone is one of the key reasons that secondhand information causes so many problems. Its tainted by bias.

The difference is ashliegh said it to his face helen said her comment in a diff room

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kefln

Actually there is a difference. In fact there is an important difference.

Legally and socially most of what we say isn't taken literally. Context and tone are what allows co-existence.

The removal of context and tone is one of the key reasons that secondhand information causes so many problems. Its tainted by bias.

There was no difference in how either of them said it. Both of them said it because they were pissed off. Neither was anywhere close to actually doing anything.

If Helen had screamed it at Ashleigh and threatened her like the Matthew incident you'd have a point. But that's not what happened. In fact the opposite, Ashleigh said it directly to him. Are threats not banned in BB? We're not talking about legally, we're talking about Big Brother, where the rules used to be pretty clear.

But they also pick and choose when to punish nomination discussion so I'm really not surprised.

[kefln]

Originally Posted by adamski94

I find it funny how out of all the evicted housemates he was the only one informed

And are you the "only one informed" about what the other HM's do or don't know.

I think what you mean to say is that he's the only one that has made comment. Whether he's correct, or not, we don't know.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by kefln

And are you the "only one informed" about what the other HM's do or don't know.

I think what you mean to say is that he's the only one that has made comment. Whether he's correct, or not, we don't know.

Im sure if it really happened ofcom would of went to town on them when they had complaints

[kefln]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

There was no difference in how either of them said it. Both of them said it because they were pissed off. Neither was anywhere close to actually doing anything.

If Helen had screamed it at Ashleigh and threatened her like the Matthew incident you'd have a point. But that's not what happened. In fact the opposite, Ashleigh said it directly to him. Are threats not banned in BB? We're not talking about legally, we're talking about Big Brother, where the rules used to be pretty clear.

But they also pick and choose when to punish nomination discussion so I'm really not surprised.

Again going back to the formal warning. Helen has been warned that she is being monitored. Her past behaviour was too aggressive. Anything that she says has to be taken more seriously.

People make idle threats, and overblown statements, all the time. But on a show like BB, in a working environment, in a school, in a social group, if you have been warned about your behaviour and language in the past, you will be treated harsher for any lapses.

[kefln]

Originally Posted by adamski94

Im sure if it really happened ofcom would of went to town on them when they had complaints

I'm sorry, again, we the viewing public have no idea what the communication between Ofcom and C5 is like.

You can't make a guess about something and then declare it as "proof" about something else.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kefln

Again going back to the formal warning. Helen has been warned that she is being monitored. Her past behaviour was too aggressive. Anything that she says has to be taken more seriously.

People make idle threats, and overblown statements, all the time. But on a show like BB, in a working environment, in a school, in a social group, if you have been warned about your behaviour and language in the past, you will be treated harsher for any lapses.

You're missing the point. Threatening behaviour is not tolerated, previous warning or not.

But then the rules state housemates are forbidden from discussing nominations and they receive food and drink every night despite living on "rations" so I'm really not surprised.

[waterhog]

i picked up on this last night. only correct.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by adamski94

Im sure if it really happened ofcom would of went to town on them when they had complaints

I'm not sure it's ofcom's business. Aren't they only there tot enforce things that can and can't be broadcast? It's not down to them to check what happens in there if it isn't shown on TV.

[kefln]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You're missing the point. Threatening behaviour is not tolerated, previous warning or not.

I think you are missing the point.

How many fights/arguments was Helen involved in before getting her formal warning?

Helen was "let off" over and over again, until she took it too far.

By your own argument Helen should have been kicked out weeks ago.

Originally Posted by Marsh.

But then the rules state housemates are forbidden from discussing nominations and they receive food and drink every night despite living on "rations" so I'm really not surprised.

Different point.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kefln

I think you are missing the point.

How many fights/arguments was Helen involved in before getting her formal warning?

Helen was "let off" over and over again, until she took it too far.

By your own argument Helen should have been kicked out weeks ago.

No, you are still missing the point.

I've not said Helen didn't deserve a warning. I'm looking for equal application of rules, which is nigh on impossible with BB these days. So my last sentence wasn't a different point, it was the point.

Threatening behaviour and language is threatening behaviour and language no matter what. Ashleigh should have had a warning regardless of whatever Helen has done.

Your assertion that Helen was "let off" time and time again is simply guesswork as you keep telling others.

[erinp5]

Big Brother Xtra ‏@BigBrotherXtra
ANOTHER warning! Helen weeps as Big Bro blast Ashleigh threats! pic.twitter.com/6idA76ODbm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BucRV28CYAAY4fG.jpg

[tanussa]

you ashleigh fans only hear what u want to hear, open your minds and be honest

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I'm not sure it's ofcom's business. Aren't they only there tot enforce things that can and can't be broadcast? It's not down to them to check what happens in there if it isn't shown on TV.

It is if viewers complained about the warnings