[rubberface]

... ofcourse the Linda was there!

I couldnt believe how biased they were!

[MrWong]

They pointed out that Jim's not being himself in there, which he's already admitted.

Not sure what the problem is here

[anne666]

Originally Posted by MrWong

They pointed out that Jim's not being himself in there, which he's already admitted.

Not sure what the problem is here

Me neither.

[Robodog]

Originally Posted by anne666

Me neither.

The problem for me was Rachel and Kate acted and spoke like regular BOTS panelists giving nothing more than their personal, sensationalist and often mean opinions but under the guise of 'expert psychologists'.

It's not about favourites - i'd have felt the same if they had gone to town on Linda in the same way in the name of 'psychologists'.

If they appeared as regular BOTS panelists and said the same things i wouldn't be bothered. Loads of opinionated panelists on there from all sides and it makes the show entertaining.

It's just hearing Rachel and Kate's 'regular panelist talk' under the label of 'psychologist/expert' that i took offence to last night.

For example : Kate dubbing Jim a liar because he has 'narrow eyes and stiff arms'. Do psychological experts apply that to everybody who has narrow eyes then? Or is she just saying that to discredit Jim?

[joeysteele]

It was a very poor panel and an even worse show,it was all a building up exercise for Linda who the viewers voting had just soundly rejected in a 5 way evection battle.

[Blue Cadillac]

What can we expect with an all female panel and two co-presenters who have auto cues for just about everything they say? The panel are probably burning their bras right now.

[smeagol]

Originally Posted by Blue Cadillac

What can we expect with an all female panel and two co-presenters who have auto cues for just about everything they say? The panel are probably burning their bras right now.

not all of them one had a dick

[Pete.]

Maybe the audience can now wake up to how awful Jim is

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Petemitch123

Maybe the audience can now wake up to how awful Jim is

What on the hearsay of a few bitter people?I doubt it, if anything people will support him more.

[Kizzy]

Defending a man accused of sexism by accusing an all female panel of feminism?
Imo they were spot on.... couldn't have put it better myself!
He does have 2 faces, 'poor me!' and 'who me?'
Apart from his beetroot 'merlot me' face obv.... :laugh;

[Seraphim]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Defending a man accused of sexism by accusing an all female panel of feminism?
Imo they were spot on.... couldn't have put it better myself!
He does have 2 faces, 'poor me!' and 'who me?'
Apart from his beetroot 'merlot me' face obv.... :laugh;

Well, to be fair to Jim, she was just being mean. He has at least two other faces, and she was just taking the piss out of the 'victim' behaviour to get a laugh. I haven't a lot of respect for that woman. I don't like the tone of her comments generally and I didn't think her input was all that helpful to Linda. It's not that great for people to go through life domineering other people into agreeing with them, and kicking off towards people she doesn't like. Linda is currently unemployed and there aren't many workplaces where she'd be allowed to exhibit behaviour like that. If she'd worked in my profession, she'd have been sacked.

[flamingGalah!]

Yeah the psychologist woman in particular was obviously a fan of 'The Nolan's', the rubbish she was spouting was hilarious! Love to know where she got her PhD!

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Well, to be fair to Jim, she was just being mean. He has at least two other faces, and she was just taking the piss out of the 'victim' behaviour to get a laugh. I haven't a lot of respect for that woman. I don't like the tone of her comments generally and I didn't think her input was all that helpful to Linda. It's not that great for people to go through life domineering other people into agreeing with them, and kicking off towards people she doesn't like. Linda is currently unemployed and there aren't many workplaces where she'd be allowed to exhibit behaviour like that. If she'd worked in my profession, she'd have been sacked.

Her grievance was valid, nobody knows how they would react in similar circumstances, I think she coped very well.
You didn't care for the psychologists tone? That's unfortunate maybe she should adopt rylans screeching tones....or john mccrirricks booming chauvinism?
You can't go through life allowing yourself to be manipulated and humiliated, if you need to make a stand do it.... Don't be shouted down by those who make disparaging comments about women in the vain hope of strengthening their argument.
Let's leave that to UKIP.

[Robodog]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Her grievance was valid, nobody knows how they would react in similar circumstances, I think she coped very well.
You didn't care for the psychologists tone? That's unfortunate maybe she should adopt rylans screeching tones....or john mccrirricks booming chauvinism?
You can't go through life allowing yourself to be manipulated and humiliated, if you need to make a stand do it.... Don't be shouted down by those who make disparaging comments about women in the vain hope of strengthening their argument.
Let's leave that to UKIP.

Rylan and John aren't claiming to be psychologists.

Rachel and Kate are.

But they acted and spoke tonight like John and other such regular opinionated panelists. That's the problem.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Robodog

Rylan and John aren't claiming to be psychologists.

Rachel and Kate are.

But they acted and spoke tonight like John and other such regular opinionated panelists. That's the problem.

I don't feel they did, they vocalised how they felt events in the house played out very well with honesty and conviction.... no histrionics necessary.
Female professionals offering an opinion shouldn't be castigated and labelled witches and feminists, it's rather silly.

[rionablue]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Defending a man accused of sexism by accusing an all female panel of feminism?
Imo they were spot on.... couldn't have put it better myself!
He does have 2 faces, 'poor me!' and 'who me?'
Apart from his beetroot 'merlot me' face obv.... :laugh;

yes Kizzy tell it how it is totally agree

[Livia]

I thought the babbling psychologist who said Jim's actions proved that he was a liar, and that the police use this same method to detect liars was particularly out of order. If I was Jim's lawyer I'd have been on the phone...

The panel looked like a ******ing coven.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

I thought the babbling psychologist who said Jim's actions proved that he was a liar, and that the police use this same method to detect liars was particularly out of order. If I was Jim's lawyer I'd have been on the phone...

The panel looked like a ******ing coven.

3 women sat together look like a coven?

[flamingGalah!]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

3 women sat together look like a coven?

Yes.

[Blue Cadillac]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

3 women sat together look like a coven?

Okay, three old hags embroiled in their bitterness looked like a coven.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

3 women sat together look like a coven?

There were four women. And they looked like 4/13ths of a coven if we're going to be picky about it.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Livia

I thought the babbling psychologist who said Jim's actions proved that he was a liar, and that the police use this same method to detect liars was particularly out of order. If I was Jim's lawyer I'd have been on the phone...

The panel looked like a ******ing coven.

This

[Jordan.]

Same whining every series when something negative is said about the favourite on bots

[delta]

They spent 20 minutes or so telling Linda Nolan what she had done wrong then spent another 20 minutes ( the panel) doing what they told Linda she shouldn't have done, are these men haters thick as well as sad? It just made the audience at home support Jim more.

With reference to the content of what the panel were saying and the 'slaying' of Jim. FFS, people, all people have different sides to them. Jim included, he ain't all bad, he ain't all funny, he ain't all miserable, etc, he's just like the rest of them is made up of many different sides and he's shown them all in there. He just doesn't happen to like, ( and most men don't) Nagging women and loud mouthed women and don't get that mixed up with Clever ,erudite women, there is a vast difference. Luisa likes the sound of her own voice and is not used to being challenged, she's a vacuous, self indulgent ,individual with an annoying monotone voice and like all bullies she backs off in the end.

[JohnnyBB]

that Wasent A bias Episode that was done on porpuse to get the votes in thats what channel 5 dose, have you ever wanted somthing but another person wants it too, but that other person is starting to get onto the fact that you want it, so you have to do somthing to throw them off the scent well thats whats bbbots episode that was, god big brother veiwers have gone so thick.