[stoney12]

Ok Pete I have been one of the few that has tried to reason some of your outbursts.Defending the row with Traci and your actions after the coat was taken.

One of the words that aplied in your defence was 'intelligence' the other 'honesty'.

However the last 3 days have shown that you have been in that house too long after all.Why did you not have the intelligence to see that Preston and Chantelle were lying for the sake of the group ? In fact you know they were.
OK there was a little gentle fun to be had with the fact that 'you knew that they did'nt know what you knew'.
But to turn it into such a personal vendetta , when it was obvious what they were trying to achieve was just cruel,spiteful and ultimately stupid.

Honesty?One of your redeeming factors for me was the time you had for Barrymore and the late night chats and laughs you had.What happened to that friendship?you seemed to drop Barrymore as soon as the house started to notice his obsessive behaviour.So what ?The man has been through lot.If folding corners see's him through the boring day who cares? You do,because you seem to realising now that he won't be making a comeback soon,so the pete and Barrymore show is cancelled.

Why on Earth of all people have you backed George.That great champion of democracy cannot seem to realiose that in a democratic vote the rest of the house have voted (fairly)that he should not nominate.Its not his rights of speech as he keeps bleating on about...its a game in which he has broken the rules more times than anyone else.Use your intelligence.

Finally Georges outburst on Barrymore was totally unjustified,personal and offensive.I see no similarity in the phrase 'saving for a rainy day' and 'poor,poor,pour me another drink'which George more or less taunted Barrymore with was unforgivable.Preston had every right to stand up for Barrymore and your attack on him for doing so ws nothing but unreasoned spite.

Thanks for livening up the house,in the first two weeks, but you should have left with the monkey.

[tali]

I agree Stoney with all you have said. Petes done his time and has been very entertaining, but I fear that people are now losing their patience with his continuous attacks on his fellow HM's and are bemused with his relationship with that awful George; well at least I am!

[lily.]

I agree. His behaviour during that fight was deplorable. He stirred it all up and sat back and watched George unleash his nastiness upon Michael.

Maybe one day Pete or George will have the misfortune of being alcoholics or having someone they love dependant on alcohol. Then they might not take the issue quite so lightly. Alcoholism destroys people and destroys families. To belittle it for the sake of a petty argument is disgusting.

[SparkleKLW]

Have u noticed how pete likes to start the arguements then he sits back and watches it like a movie,I think he enjoys it as he sits there grinning when everyone is argueing which he started off! Very sick man.
Pete doesn't like it if someone has something better than him i think if your dress was better looking than his he would be nasty about it.

I must admit i did feel sorry for barrymore when i saw that last night at the end of the day George doesn't like it cos no one stuck up for him not even barrymore which is very childish he is big enough and old enough to stand on his own 2 feet he doesn't need someone to hold his hand i think this is a very selfish and childish reason to attack someone like what he did to barrymore.

Preston & Chantelle was trying to complete a task and ppl should have stopped and thought about what was going on but Preston & Chantelle are very nieve and if it was one of the others doing that task they would have put 2 & 2 together and known what BB was up2 this is why I think they were picked to do that task & they did go abit too far with the mission its one thing having a glass of champagne and a little bite to eat then coming out but not to go to the extreme they did go and this is what annoyed ppl they were taking advantage of what they were given and should have thought what the outlook would be if they did do it.I mean come on u don't get anything free in this world without something attached to it.But I didn't think the adults in the house would stoop that low with the arguements as they should have known what BB was doing they were trying to create an arguement and they fell for it.

I really hope George goes tonight he is a very silly childish man and needs to rethink his position as no one is going to trust him now.

Sparkle

[Sunny_01]

Pete loads the gun and hands it to someone else to fire! George was the lowest of the low last night when he had a dig about Michael's drinking. For someone who fights for people's rights and claims to be a people person he showed a really low cruel side of himself last night!

[Tanser_Man]

I couldn't believe they were being so nasty to Chantelle and Preston, saying they lied but they forgot the fact that they also lied in order to pass the task. Something about glass houses comes to mind.

And as for George on Barrymore, i thought exactly the same as Preston did and it was such a personal dig. How could an MP act so childish and revert to something as low in the spectrum as that? And how can Pete defend something like that? You can't but being the instigator that Pete is, he'd rather make war then peace so i'm not suprised.

[abbashop79]

Some people deserve to be spoken to really badly by Pete. I think Traci got over abused, but who cares, I'm not Traci's Dad, and she lives in another country, so I couldnt care less. I'm only joking!! Of course I care no matter which country or colour or smell, but Pete has a right to have feelings too. If Pete feels like bitching and moaning to those stupid housemates, and they don't stand up for themselves properly, then so what? They can tell him to shut the F up and he probably would! But they havent said that to him have they. Pete needs you to be firm with him before he respects you. Pete has feelings too!!

You spin me right round baby right round....

[CharlotteSometimes]

Originally posted by stoney12

However the last 3 days have shown that you have been in that house too long after all.Why did you not have the intelligence to see that Preston and Chantelle were lying for the sake of the group ? In fact you know they were.
OK there was a little gentle fun to be had with the fact that 'you knew that they did'nt know what you knew'.
But to turn it into such a personal vendetta , when it was obvious what they were trying to achieve was just cruel,spiteful and ultimately stupid.

Honesty?One of your redeeming factors for me was the time you had for Barrymore and the late night chats and laughs you had.What happened to that friendship?you seemed to drop Barrymore as soon as the house started to notice his obsessive behaviour.So what ?The man has been through lot.If folding corners see's him through the boring day who cares? You do,because you seem to realising now that he won't be making a comeback soon,so the pete and Barrymore show is cancelled.

Why on Earth of all people have you backed George.That great champion of democracy cannot seem to realiose that in a democratic vote the rest of the house have voted (fairly)that he should not nominate.Its not his rights of speech as he keeps bleating on about...its a game in which he has broken the rules more times than anyone else.Use your intelligence.

Finally Georges outburst on Barrymore was totally unjustified,personal and offensive.I see no similarity in the phrase 'saving for a rainy day' and 'poor,poor,pour me another drink'which George more or less taunted Barrymore with was unforgivable.Preston had every right to stand up for Barrymore and your attack on him for doing so ws nothing but unreasoned spite.

Thanks for livening up the house,in the first two weeks, but you should have left with the monkey.

He picked up on the fact that they adapted themselves to their roles so quickly, lied so outrageously, and showed no apparent guilt about it. That's a fair observation, I think. He went on about it for far too long, but his initial points were valid.

That's quite an exaggeration, don't you think? Take it from the other side, and Barrymore nominated him. So surely if anyone has dumped a 'friend', it's Barrymore, rather than Pete. Whenever he's made his observations about Barrymore, he's always followed them up with positive comments, too. It's a tv show, not preparations for a cover version of Little Drummer Boy, after all.

He probably thinks that he owes George a favour for backing him over the coat incident. I don't fully understand why he's backing George either, but I need to watch the show back again as I was a little distracted last night. But still, as usual, we don't know where the edits were made. At this juncture, I'd say that he was wrong to ally himself with George. But they've all done things that have been out of order, so I don't see any reason to hold one incident against him. He also knows that George is toast tonight as well, so there's no ulterior motive going on here.

I can't say that I've ever heard the phrase before, either. But it was indeed a disgusting thing to say. Well no, Preston had every right to find the comment disgusting and completely out of order, but he should've kept his mouth shut and let Barrymore answer himself. In fact, it was actually very important that he did answer for himself, because facing up to rubbish like that and being able to get past it is of vital importance to him.

However, a Google search finds plenty of hits for this phrase, and most of them are on AA and other sites about addiction and recovery. I didn't find any links that weren't in some way connected with alcoholism, in fact. So given that Pete was aware of the phrase, and how much it seemed to rile him, it seems pretty probable to me that he's had some direct experience. I despise alcohol, and won't have it in my home or anywhere near me. I have good reason to feel that way, and the whole topic makes me extremely bitter very quickly indeed. Everyone seems to be assuming that Pete was talking nonsense when he suggested that it was a common phrase, but the fact that it is indeed common yet only in very particular circles makes me assume something altogether different.

Well hey, he was never going to win, and he was always going to get a bad reception when he left the house - nothing has changed on that score at all. But if all of this stuff about Pete is true, then why haven't the other hm's all sent him to Coventry? They're all aware of everything that we've discussed here, yet nobody seems to be actively avoiding him or even calling him to task. Why could that be? There may be a few mousey types in there, but Barrymore and Dennis are more than capable of holding their own in a heated debate, yet they've remained silent. That silence speaks volumes for me, as does looking at the whole picture rather than the spliced soundbite version.

[Ruth]

I think Rula hit the nail on the head when she said why most of the housemates won't challenge Pete. She said that he would so nasty if they did that it would cause a terrible atmosphere throughout the whole house.

I do agree that whether that 'pour me....' phrase is in common use or not, it was still a disgusting thing for George to say. I agree with Charlotte that Michael perhaps needed to answer that one for himself - which he did I think! However, what got me most about that whole thing was that George had previously interjected while Michael was talking, to defend Dennis, but he acted like Preston had no right whatsoever to do the same thing and defend Michael.

But, as I've posted elsewhere, the instigator of that whole argument was Pete. He stirred it all up, then pulled up a chair to watch and revel in what he had caused.

[stoney12]

Charlotte, if Pete has experience of the phrase 'poor me',then should he not have had a go at George,instead of Preston ?

Barrymore nominated pete...but Pete does'nt know that and so what if he did.Thats nothing to do with frienship in the house,its part of the game.

Preston and Chantelle had to adapt to their roles quickly ,it was part of the task.Why would they show guilt about it?Pete knew they were lying and for some reason rather than playing the game,gave them a real hard time and nearly jeapordised the task.

[Mike]

Originally posted by Ruth
I think Rula hit the nail on the head when she said why most of the housemates won't challenge Pete. She said that he would so nasty if they did that it would cause a terrible atmosphere throughout the whole house.

I do agree that whether that 'pour me....' phrase is in common use or not, it was still a disgusting thing for George to say. I agree with Charlotte that Michael perhaps needed to answer that one for himself - which he did I think! However, what got me most about that whole thing was that George had previously interjected while Michael was talking, to defend Dennis, but he acted like Preston had no right whatsoever to do the same thing and defend Michael.

But, as I've posted elsewhere, the instigator of that whole argument was Pete. He stirred it all up, then pulled up a chair to watch and revel in what he had caused.

Totally agree with that.

Pete can dish the dirt but can't take it back, its ok for him to confront someone and start calling them names but the minute he gets anything said back to him he hates it, even the other housemates have clocked on what hes like.

[CharlotteSometimes]

Originally posted by stoney12

Charlotte, if Pete has experience of the phrase 'poor me',then should he not have had a go at George,instead of Preston ?

Barrymore nominated pete...but Pete does'nt know that and so what if he did.Thats nothing to do with frienship in the house,its part of the game.

Preston and Chantelle had to adapt to their roles quickly ,it was part of the task.Why would they show guilt about it?

There's nothing I can add that I've not said already from the third sentence onwards in the paragraph concerned.

How many hm's have we seen nominate their supposed 'friends' in the past? I can't think of any other than Makosi & Kemal (BB6) and Tania & Sissy (BB4).

Because people that aren't comfortable with that sort of thing generally do.

[proud2root4themp]

George's outbust was justified because Michael stabbed him in the back all George did was be a friend to Michael and he stabs him in the back over cigarettes... who would you choose your friend or cigarettes? I know I would choose my friend.

[stoney12]

Yeah,but George was also wise enough to realise that Michael was doing it as a compulsive behaviour.In that case I would make allowances.

[ice_queen11]

See... If you look back over things and try and figure out why things were said you'll realise it was said for a good reason

[Ruth]

I could be wrong, but I think stoney was saying that he would make allowances for Michael, not George! As George definitely did realise that Michael's behaviour was part of an apparent OCD, he should have gone easier on Michael.

[ice_queen11]

Well you know people like Michael needs someone to be hard on them or they'll continue to act stupidly or hurt people... George was doing it for his own good... George trusted Michael and Michael stabbed him the back over cigarette... That's wrong and George noticed that Michael was just crying to get the sympathy vote and he was... he always does it cry cry cry for the camera and then last night he says if anyone's watching of course they are he's in the damn diary room he's such a loser I cannot believe how much of a loser he really is