Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarryn
But if Helen was weirded out but not threatened by his behaviour then it's a non-story. She has nothing better to say than slate somebody that she has deeply offended in order to gain backing for her behaviour in that house.
Aaron was removed for his behaviour with Joel so Helen knew BB would have to take action if needs-be but instead she waits to weeks to tell it in a newspaper for maximum publicity.
I just don't believe her  |
Realistically Helen knows there is nothing that can happen to her in the BB house so she might not have felt threatened or in danger, but I do believe her when she says she felt creeped/weirded out by Brian and felt he was an oddball.
It would take a lot more though than just feeling creeped out for Helen to go and complain to BB. In the past Helen defended Jeremy Jackson after groping Chloe and said "that girl has ruined this poor guy's life" - she later went on to befriend Chloe and take her side when she got the full story, but just using that example and Helen's general complaining that housemates go "whinging" too much to the diaryroom would mean that Helen would be very reluctant and it would take something major for her to actually make a formal complaint probably for fear of looking like a hypocrite to her followers if she did. Plus they had just entered the house and maybe she just wanted to brush off the incident and carry on with their task and re-entering the main house. But I can absolutely believe that she did find Brian creepy but can also see a number of reasons why she didn't want to make a big deal out of it and complain even if she was creeped out.
I'm not saying Helen is correct in her assessment of Brian as a creep, as how the heck would I know never met the guy, and by all accounts his friends on the telly describe him as a very sweet guy, but I can say that I can see why she might have come to that conclusion.
It wasn't just the one odd naked incident, there seems to have been a buildup of comments, behaviour and rows that led her (and Marc) to form this opinion of Brian.
In my own opinion, that frozen naked duck thing at breakfast time with no alcohol taken might possibly have just been a very strange attempt at humour by Brian and was meant to be harmless but I can still see why somebody could read it differently and feel uncomfortable. The several outbursts of explosive temper which we
did get to witness that seemed to come out of nowhere from Brian would make think the person was a bit unhinged (anger management wise) so I could understand them being baffled and wary by that. Maybe this paired with the things we didn't get to see explains to some extent why Helen and Marc felt Brian was a "weirdo" or a bit of a "psycho".
Again I'm not saying they are necessary correct, but I'm just trying to see it from both sides really. We have got to repeatedly hear Brian and Nikki give their explanations for how Helen and Marc made them feel, got to hear them repeatedly explain what horrible vile scum they felt Helen and Marc are, and got to hear
their explanations for losing their temper with Helen. So if they get to sit on telly or sell their stories to papers giving their side explaining their feelings and their angry reactions in the house, then why shouldn't Helen get a chance to give her side and explanation of events too?
Again her giving the backstory/explanation does not
justify the two words she called him and she makes that clear herself, this is more just a story of her own time in the house and the build up of why the two didn't get along in the first place imo.
Aaron,
Linear Mode
