[Jase.]

"It was because of my friendship with Perez, everybody apart from Katie loved me in the house"

MESS

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Patricia4

You have a way with words Chuff

Straight to the point,no messing,love you Chufflet

[Vanessa]

At this point everyone has their favouites and nothing will change that. that vote was always going to be close.

[Suze]

Seems a weird thing to say, considering she wanted out that house so much No one forced her to hang around with Perez.

[colin72]

Originally Posted by mazerunner_888

...Alex became increasingly volatile and hence why BB had to eject him from the house. Be assured he did not walk but was pushed and deported.

Delusional.

[Miranda123]

Originally Posted by mazerunner_888

Nadia knew from her motherly instincts that Alex was both homophobic and a violent man. We saw this happen when Perez confronted Alex with these issues he called Perez the F word and more. Then over the next couple of days Alex became increasingly volatile and hence why BB had to eject him from the house. Be assured he did not walk but was pushed and deported.

Now if you watch the series again with a open heart and clear mind free from confabulations you will see the truth of Nadia as the kind and warm figure she is who stands for Truth in the face of evil and abuse about her cooking from the vain Calum.

that was almost biblical lol

KATIE HOPKINS TO WIN!!

[Miranda123]

Originally Posted by mazerunner_888

You say this but if we checked your TV planner I bet you Loose woman is on record full series.

OMG, who would even think of RECORDING Loose ****ing women??

actually you thought of it, didnt you ? lol

[darkestcornwall]

I can feel the love and niceness flowing from her body.

[JoshBB]

She went because she wasn't as liked as the others, it's VTS not VTE.

[Pennie]

I completely disagree. Nadia is one of those people with a heightened sense of justice, with a strong conscience and ethics. She's the kind of person who wouldn't push the button in the Milgram experiment because she has the backbone to stand alone against something she believes to be wrong.

Okay, Perez is a nightmare. He's a total narcissist. But for whatever reason, he and Nadia found common ground regarding their core values, and so, despite the overwhelming wave of peer pressure, she loyally stood by him, as friends do. I agree she would have been free to reveal more of her character without Perez in the house, because she was in this position of being constantly on the defensive, which is a real shame.

I totally understand why Nadia was opposed to Hopkins from the start. To Nadia, it didn't matter how superficially friendly Hopkins could be, firstly because it doesn't take a genius to work out how manipulation is part of Hopkins' schtick, but also because their core values are so markedly opposed. Nadia is a generous, open-minded spirit who believes in equality and social justice, Hopkins is an extreme conservative who's made a career of victimising the more vulnerable sectors of the community - the uneducated, the unemployed - in the name of honesty. It is so (ironically) disingenuous to say judgemental, destructive things and to put your hands up and just claim "I'm just being honest". If you walk up to a terminal cancer patient and bluntly say "You're going to die soon," that statement might be true, but is it necessary, or is it just hateful and self-serving? Hopkins' "honesty" is not the product of a person brave enough to say what the rest of us are thinking, it's predominantly ill-judged, misinformed opinion, that would only ever occur to a mean-minded, ignorant bigot - designed to be controversial and hurtful, yet falsely cloaked in self-righteousness. It astounds me that anyone could fall for Hopkins' cheap, attention-***** schtick. Anyway, Nadia didn't, because she's fair-minded and intelligent.

Truth is, Perez and Hopkins are cut from the same cloth. Both loud-mouthed attention *****s who will say almost anything to get their names in the tabloids. They've made a career of it. The difference between them is that on a personal level, their politics and values are different, and Nadia obviously found common ground with Perez she'd never find with Hopkins. Also, as she's repeatedly said, even if she disliked Perez, she hated to see someone marginalised and ostracised by the rest of the house. Hopkins was the one who engineered that marginalisation, not being content with disliking him herself, she campaigned for the others to as well. She's an odious, horrible person, and the antithesis of everything Nadia stands for.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Ja$e

"It was because of my friendship with Perez, everybody apart from Katie loved me in the house"

MESS

she seemed very confident about how likeable she is didn't she? I found that strange and creepy! Her ego must be a burden to live with.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Miranda123

that was almost biblical lol

KATIE HOPKINS TO WIN!!

Is she your mum?

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by Pennie

I completely disagree. Nadia is one of those people with a heightened sense of justice, with a strong conscience and ethics. She's the kind of person who wouldn't push the button in the Milgram experiment because she has the backbone to stand alone against something she believes to be wrong.

Okay, Perez is a nightmare. He's a total narcissist. But for whatever reason, he and Nadia found common ground regarding their core values, and so, despite the overwhelming wave of peer pressure, she loyally stood by him, as friends do. I agree she would have been free to reveal more of her character without Perez in the house, because she was in this position of being constantly on the defensive, which is a real shame.

I totally understand why Nadia was opposed to Hopkins from the start. To Nadia, it didn't matter how superficially friendly Hopkins could be, firstly because it doesn't take a genius to work out how manipulation is part of Hopkins' schtick, but also because their core values are so markedly opposed. Nadia is a generous, open-minded spirit who believes in equality and social justice, Hopkins is an extreme conservative who's made a career of victimising the more vulnerable sectors of the community - the uneducated, the unemployed - in the name of honesty. It is so (ironically) disingenuous to say judgemental, destructive things and to put your hands up and just claim "I'm just being honest". If you walk up to a terminal cancer patient and bluntly say "You're going to die soon," that statement might be true, but is it necessary, or is it just hateful and self-serving? Hopkins' "honesty" is not the product of a person brave enough to say what the rest of us are thinking, it's predominantly ill-judged, misinformed opinion, that would only ever occur to a mean-minded, ignorant bigot - designed to be controversial and hurtful, yet falsely cloaked in self-righteousness. It astounds me that anyone could fall for Hopkins' cheap, attention-***** schtick. Anyway, Nadia didn't, because she's fair-minded and intelligent.

Truth is, Perez and Hopkins are cut from the same cloth. Both loud-mouthed attention *****s who will say almost anything to get their names in the tabloids. They've made a career of it. The difference between them is that on a personal level, their politics and values are different, and Nadia obviously found common ground with Perez she'd never find with Hopkins. Also, as she's repeatedly said, even if she disliked Perez, she hated to see someone marginalised and ostracised by the rest of the house. Hopkins was the one who engineered that marginalisation, not being content with disliking him herself, she campaigned for the others to as well. She's an odious, horrible person, and the antithesis of everything Nadia stands for.

What bull****. The only common ground these two had were their mutual dislike of Katy H.