Posts
Who will speak up for Jo O'Meara?
Jo O'Meara's steadfast refusal to apologise for her idiocy has won her few friends. Remember, of course, it only looks bad if you edit out all the hours she spent not being a racist bully and left in the times she was.
Even the BNP seemed reluctant to embrace her, suggesting instead that Big Brother contestants should be shot:
[S]pokesman Dr Phil Edwards said: 'The comments made should not be classed as racist.
'They (the housemates) have been making comments about the way people live in other countries.
'The show is trivia, people should stop getting upset and start talking about the real problems in Britain - mass immigration, about the number of foreigners here.'
He added: 'They should close the programme and shoot the lot of them.'
'They (the housemates) have been making comments about the way people live in other countries.
'The show is trivia, people should stop getting upset and start talking about the real problems in Britain - mass immigration, about the number of foreigners here.'
He added: 'They should close the programme and shoot the lot of them.'
With most people you'd put the call to shoot the contestants down to overstatement, but the BNP have probably already earmarked the sports stadium it'll be using to work its way through its list should it ever seize power.
In the Daily Telegraph, Shyama Perera declared Jo to be worse than Danielle and Jade, possibly put together, but does offer her an excuse:
Jo, the last of the gang of three, is the one I find it hardest to excuse, though her comments about Indians being thin were clearly ironic in the face of Shilpa's shambolic attempts to cook. Looking at her, the only one of the group with a natural talent, the worry is that she's as good as it gets. I can only feel despair, not anger.
Should Jo then try "I wasn't being racist, I was being ironic" as a response? And if the remarks were an ironic jibe at Shetty's cooking rather than the entire stereotyping of a nation, why did she suggest "Indians" (rather than Shilpa) were thin because of bad cooking?
But good news for Jo this morning - she's finally found someone to stand up for her.
The bad news is that it's Sarah Ferguson, the former wife of Andrew Windsor. While "not endorsing" what Jo has said, Ferguson believes that it's time "she should be removed from the stocks":
"I didn't watch the show and I don't condone anything she has allegedly said or done.
"But I know what it's like to be vilified. She is a broken girl. All I'm saying is that she should be removed from the stocks," Sarah Ferguson said
"But I know what it's like to be vilified. She is a broken girl. All I'm saying is that she should be removed from the stocks," Sarah Ferguson said
But Ferguson was vilified because she was (widely perceived) as a freeloader, on account of her, erm, freeloading. Jo's troubles are slightly different, and brought on herself.
Fergie's intervention is all the more puzzling because it came via a phone call to GM-TV. Apparently, she'd been watching Jo sobbing on the GM-TV couch and ordered her assistant to phone up and offer some support.
O'Meara still seems to think that by being exposed as a nasty, bullying piece of work she's been somehow tricked:
"I just feel that Big Brother had a TV show to make and they have to do what they can to make good viewing and unfortunately I was a guinea pig. It's ruined my life."
No, Jo - the minutes where you sat laughing your head off as your chum Jade honked and honked at Shetty weren't "good viewing." They were bloody uncomfortable to watch - not least because, clearly, you and Lloyd felt not discomfort whatsoever. Big Brother hasn't ruined your life.
Your behaviour has. And your inability to even see why people are disgusted with you reveals more about you than the cameras in the house ever did.
65 comments:
I think you should all take a long hard look at yourselves! What we saw happen in the Big Brother house was just on a smaller scale of what happens every single day in this society!! I watched alot of live footage of Big Brother and have to say most of it was the housemates having fun, laughing and being silly together. There was some moments when not everyone got on - and you cant make everyone get on in such a small confinde space. I agree Jade and Danielle were very harsh and possibly slightly racist at times, but Jo I'm sorry but I watched very closely and saw a frightened young lady who got stuck following the pack - altho saying that on the live feed i did witness several times when she told Jade and Danielle to stop the behaviour towards Shilpa. I think the whole thing has been blown out of proportion and actually feel quite sorry about how Jo has been treated after being evicted. She truely has become a broken woman and certainly did not deserve that. I believe if i was in her situation in the house i would of acted the same as i too am a follower and don't always speak for myself. I'm sure Jade could easily influence me and i would probably hang around with them alot because of the similar age and the fact that i just would want to fit in - i would laugh with them and what they do, not because i think its right but because i hadnt got it in me to shout stop to them and turn against them.
This news now though should be long gone, but no its still fresh in everyone minds because the media keep bringing it up, they are doing exactly what they accused the girls of - bullying and not letting them get on with their lives. They have all had punishment now some more than others - poor Jo seems to have the most of it dumped on her shoulders. Let them be , let them get their lives sorted now, well Jo anyway the other two seem to of got off and are doing their own thing.
I know for one what a lovely girl Jo is, we all make mistakes, and she IS sorry and has said she is - although no one seems to of picked up on that! Please let the girl get on with her life theres no need to drive her more into the ground, its time for her to build her self up from the bottom now.
Saz
Like Saz said, take a real long look at yourself. Your criticising a woman who has clearly been broken by this entire mess. Jo is simply the victim of bad editing on behalf of the big brother executives, and their motivation behind it was $$$ coz when it comes to reality shows, Controversy makes $$$.
Lay Off Jo, you dont even know her.
There was AMPLE footage on the live feed of Jo having fun, GETTING ALONG WITH EVERYONE and simply being the real self that she is, but this was not shown on the highlights show, which unfortunatly seemed to draw a larger audience than the live feed.
No one, not you or even myself can understand the position that Jo was in whilst in that house as i am sure that no one here has been stuck in a house for nearly a month, with a buncho f other 'celebrities' and not being allowed to have contact with the outside world, then to top it all off, their every move, action, conversation was being filme dfor millions to see.
Lay off her already!!
Emma x x x
I think it's very unfair that the people criticise Jo on the basis of a few short moments in a TV show.
I have also read a lot of comments from people who has watched the complete show and they have a positive impression of Jo.
I'm from Germany and therefore not so close to the whole matter but I'm shocked how some people and also some media treated Jo.
This people have much more reason to be ashamed than Jo.
Jo isn't a racist but the media need scandals to sell their products and therefore they misinterpret Jo's words consciously to make profit.
Saz:"This news now though should be long gone, but no its still fresh in everyone minds because the media keep bringing it up, they are doing exactly what they accused the girls of - bullying and not letting them get on with their lives." - although you've just posted on a news story from the end of January, so it's not like you're letting it go, either.
What you're doing is making excuses - she was weak, she was lead astray by Jade. The reason why Jo has continued to be troubled after leaving the house is because she tried to brazen it out - finding excuses rather than taking responsibilty.
Has Jo "said how sorry she is"? Yes, but only how sorry for herself. In her most recent interview, she tried to claim it was all "editing"; at other times, she has said "I have apologised" - but she hasn't - saying "I've said I'm sorry" isn't the same as apologising. How can she have apologised when she's not been face to face with Shilpa since the end of the series?
Emma:
No, Jo wasn't a racist bully the whole of the time - even members of the BNP aren't racist bullies the whole time. But you're just plain wrong about suggesting that her bullying was created in the edit - she sat there guffawing as Jade had a go at Shilpa; she really did say that thing about Indians being thin because they don't cook their food properly.
Big Brother has run for seven years. Jo knew what the programme was like.
If we really want to move on, let's see her stop saying "poor me", let's stop trying to pretend that the editing created a racist bully rather than revealed one, and stop arguing that people should be free to bully without consequences.
People make far too much of the 'live feed' issue - the fact was that even that was heavily edited - with 50+ cameras, at least 4 rooms, sound and picture dips and the fact that only one camera could be watched at any time meant that any true representation of a housemate was subjective and at the hands of the editors.
Jo was obviously very nervous and unsure of the situation with people around her who had large personalities and dominating characters. Yes she may have followed the pack and made a couple of ill-judged and flippant comments but out of the hours upon hours of possible footage this made up less than 1% of the entire story.
I myself saw plenty of occasions when Jo was extremely funny, entertaining. The entire incident was blown completely out of proportion and the fall out from it has affected this fragile young woman extensively.
To not have sympathy or understanding that the effect has been deep is to ignore basic humanity and compassion. And to not realise that if it has affected someone to that degree they must have definite remorse for them and the impact just shows how little empathy you must have for your fellow human beings.
Jo may not have made the right choices in that house but they are not hangable offences and this young naive woman should not be villified and judged on what amounts to a few moments in her entire life.
In answer to your question "who will speak up for Jo O'Meara?" I think you'll find there are plenty of people who will. Most of us aren't celebrities, but we still count. The papers just don't acknowledge us in their stories.
I think that a few hours of heavily edited footage is not enough to judge someone on. I have been a fan of Jo for years, and you can hardly do that without getting to know stuff about her, one thing is that she is definately not a bully or a racist. She is a lovely person, who has been portrayed badly by the editing of Big Brother because they wanted to make interesting viewing, and lots of money. They weren't trying to give accuate portrayals of the housemates and they don't seem to care what effects that has had after leaving the house.
People are doing what they are accusing Jo of, but 10 times worse. She didn't deserve the treatment she has received.
Tasha
Tasha:
It's nonsense, I'm afraid, to try and pretend that the media has somehow been silencing the voices of people who think Jo's behaviour should be excused, or explained away, or forgiven - you're all over the place. The trouble is, your case consists of two weak points repeated over and over again:
(I) Jo's lovely and not a racist bully
and
(II) It was edited to make her seem like a racist bully.
The fact that she's never appeared to be racist or bullying in earlier, highly mediated, public appearances proves nothing, I'm afraid - most of her screen time prior to Big Brother has been either singing or scripted; it's precisely to get beyond the stage-smiles and plastic persona that BB is designed for. Even if you set aside the bullying, her general sour demeanour did her no favours - did you see the way she reacted when they played Reach?
Jo's fans - or supporters, as I guess they've become - seem to want her to get off without any consequences. What sort of message does that send?
And yes, Channel 4 wanted to make money. It's a commercial organisation. Let's not forget, though, that Jo's motivation was exactly the same - to make cash.
I think to say she has got off with 'no consequences' is a ridiculous statement in the extreme! How can having a nervous breakdown not be considered as the worst and most severe of consequences for anybody?
You appear to be totally set in your opinion without an ounce of acceptance of the possibility that other's opinions could just be correct or at least in part.
You sit in judgement based on a mindset of unswerving stubbornness without even considering the option that, perhaps, a few minutes of thoughtless and flippant comments made in the heat of the moment and in an entirely manufactured and stressful setting could just be out of character for someone.
God forbid you ever sit on a jury to decide someone's fate!
Kay:
If you actually read what I said, it was not that Jo has got off without any consquences, but:
Jo's fans - or supporters, as I guess they've become - seem to want her to get off without any consequences.
(Funny that everyone who squawks about Channel 4 supposedly editing someone's words to make them appear to be different to what they intended are fond of doing that themselves.)
You say:
You appear to be totally set in your opinion without an ounce of acceptance of the possibility that other's opinions could just be correct or at least in part.
Interesting that you're somehow able to know what thought processes I did or didn't go through to reach my opinion - this would be a fairly rubbish blog, though, if it was all
"Jo might have been a racist bully. Or maybe not. Some people might think she's lovely, because she was once on a kid's TV show."
You sit in judgement based on a mindset of unswerving stubbornness without even considering the option that, perhaps, a few minutes of thoughtless and flippant comments made in the heat of the moment and in an entirely manufactured and stressful setting could just be out of character for someone.
Based on a mindset of unswerving stubborness? Sorry, when did we meet - or are you basing your opinion of me on... ooh, a post or two on No Rock? Nah, can't be, can it?
Anyway - yes, it could be out of character for someone. But the fact she then lied through her teeth about it, refused to apologise and continues to portray herself as a victim (of her bullying someone else!) suggests it's not.
od forbid you ever sit on a jury to decide someone's fate!
Yes, how awful to have a juror who comes to an independent opinion based on what he's seen rather than simply listening to the character witnesses. Imagine the miscarriages of justice...
Simon h b:
It seems that your case is based purely on a couple of bits of footage shown on Big Brother, so it is based solely on appearances without any consideration of:
what the situation was really like
or whether the footage captured who Jo really is
or even if she was being herself just then.
You are judging her on one single occasion, without considering what her true character is.
Character references are important to decide if someone is a truly nasty person or not.
Who would know better what Jo is really like, her fans or someone who had never heard of her before Big Brother?
Also, Jo needed the money, C4 just wanted it, they weren't going to get their house repossesed.
A word about the editing. Channel 4's main priority was to get as many people as possible to watch the show. The easiest way for them to do this was to provide the public with a 'storyline' that they could relate to and get involved with. Of course, one dominant theme in the house was the tension between Shilpa and the other girls. The editors chose that theme as their central story and edited it in such a way to make it look much, much more sinister and deliberate than it really was. Jo had many funny, endearing and entertaining moments in the house but if the editors had shown them in the higlights, it would have diluted and detracted from their 'story'. It suited their purpose to edit Jo to look like some kind of monster; the media got their knickers in a real twist about it and hey presto, more people tuned in to see what all the fuss was about. I bet those viewing figures sent channel 4 advertising rates through the roof! The media have always made their profits from demonising women (Cherie Blair, Madonna, Heather Mills, Diana, Sarah Ferguson...) I suppose a small minority of people derive some sick pleasure from it.It's really sad but Jo isn't the first and won't be the last.
My overall impression of Jo was of a very real, insecure person struggling in a difficult environment. I don't deny that she said and did some stupid, unpleasant things but I don't think that people saw Jo as a whole person in that house. She wouldn't be capable of singing like she can or doing what she has done in life if that was true.
Tasha (and, indeed, anonymous) - you seem to be implying that judging if an incident was an act of racist bullying or not on the basis of watching the incident is the wrong way to go about things. It may well be that Jo spends the rest of her life being kind to kittens and working for peace in the Balkans. But, in the same way that Dr Shipman is judged on the basis of the patients he killed rather than the ones he cured, it's the transgression that we are judging her on.
(I'm not, by the way, suggesting that O'Meara's morality is on a par with the doctor from Hyde, but I'm trying to keep the imagery as simple as possible.)
And, by the way, it's not "one single occasion" - there was the Oxo cube bit, the "amusing" Indian accent, the way she reacted to Lloyd's 'dont let' em touch your food' bit, the "no wonder I keep getting the shits" comment, the thing about how Indians are thin because they don't cook their food properly...
Who would know better what Jo is really like, her fans or someone who had never heard of her before Big Brother?
To be honest, both would be equally ignorant of what the real Jo is like - personally, I'd always assumed she might be a good laugh from the way she threw herself into the old CBBC S-Club series, but, of course, you can't tell from someone working to a script, can you?
Also, Jo needed the money, C4 just wanted it, they weren't going to get their house repossesed.
Not entirely true - Channel 4 rely on Big Brother to underwrite their better programming. Jo could have got a proper job; Channel 4 could hardly take a position at the Nationwide.
Anonymous, your point about the programme being edited to make it more compelling might be a little hackneyed but isn't incorrect. It's just not relevant. The fact that they chose to focus on the racism and the bullying doesn't change that it happened. It's like saying "well, yeah, you'd imagine that the Argentinian presence in the Falklands was bad because all you saw on the news was the soldiers..."
Your suggestion that the fawning coverage of the People's Princess was "demonising" Diana is just idiotic, to be frank, but not as frankly weak as the argument that "Jo couldn't sing like that if she was really like that" - unless you can point me in the direction of some evidence that talent depends on temperament, of course.
Oh my God, you compared Jo to Dr Shipman!!!! How can i not laugh at that? Hmmmmm, someone murders loads of patients, someone laughs about an Oxo cube. Struggling to see the comparison.
How deluded are you???
Clearly you're struggling to counter-argue everyone else's opinions on here and grabbing for straws with extremely far-fetched comparisons. Come back to the real world for a moment.
Jo has apologised several times, you're just not interested in hearing it, and nor are the tabloids hence you don't seem to be aware. But you probably do know that and are just ignoring it because it doesn't suit your story.
Oh and by the way, since you love alluding to footage of 'transgressions' I suggest you check out the footage of Shilpa taking the piss out of Jo's accent and the occassions (yes, plural) when Jo spoke to both Jade and Danielle saying they should not be so mean to Shilpa and consider she is far from home and having to cope with a culture shift. The whole story is much more complicated and interesting than the 2 dimensional story that Channel 4 and the papers wanted to tell. Not everything is black and white, or are you going to somehow turn that into a racist statement? Look for the shades of gray and stop towing the line behind the tabloids.
You seem to love portraying yourself as an independent thinker but are just displaying the attitude of someone who has jumped on the bandwagon and agreed with papers for fear of being cast as a racist if you don't conform. A real independent thinker would actually consider other opinions and consult the evidence with a range of possible conculsions. You have closed your mind to all the possibilities that people have presented and just followed the crowd like a sheep.
Oh and Jo hasn't been saying poor me. She's actually had a breakdown and her one live televised interview since then showed her graciously saying that she understands the papers have a story to sell. I didn't hear her say poor me at all. Very impressive and gracious of a woman who has had her name dragged through the gutter by judgmental bigots
Talent is quite dependant on temperament actually. Sensitivity is key to anything artistic, so she would have to be a sensitive person to be so talented and sing like she does.
(It says sensitivity is key to art in a book written by a psychologist by the way)
Simon h b: it's the transgression that we are judging her on.
Then you are judging her whole character on a couple of mistakes, (not even all of them), and none of her achievements. How can you reach a balanced judgement that way?
Jo couldn't have got a normal job to save her house either, it takes ages to get a job, and would take much longer to earn enough. That would take too long. I doubt she'd get 1000s from 3 weeks working in Tesco.
Caz:
Oh my God, you compared Jo to Dr Shipman!!!! How can i not laugh at that? Hmmmmm, someone murders loads of patients, someone laughs about an Oxo cube. Struggling to see the comparison.
How deluded are you???
Clearly you're struggling to counter-argue everyone else's opinions on here and grabbing for straws with extremely far-fetched comparisons. Come back to the real world for a moment.
Erm, Caz, I don't know if you have problems with basic English comprehension, but just to make it perfectly clear, when I said:
(I'm not, by the way, suggesting that O'Meara's morality is on a par with the doctor from Hyde, but I'm trying to keep the imagery as simple as possible.)
I made it clear I wasn't comparing O'Meara and Shipman, merely using Shipman's case an example of how a person who does wrong from time to time may spend much of their time not seeming to be bad. I did try to reach for some simple imagery, clearly it still went over your head.
Jo has apologised several times, you're just not interested in hearing it, and nor are the tabloids hence you don't seem to be aware. But you probably do know that and are just ignoring it because it doesn't suit your story.
I'm not ignoring it - I genuinely haven't seen any apology from her; I have, however, seen her interviews where she claims to have apologised, and seen her interviews where she has said she has nothing to apologise for. I suspect if she is changing her mind now, that is less "I am sorry for what I have done" and more "I am very sorry for myself", but I would love to see reports of these apologies - do you have URLs?
Not everything is black and white, or are you going to somehow turn that into a racist statement?
Oh, good Lord. You're going to start saying "it's political correctness gone mad" soon, aren't you? The loss of the Junior Letters Page in the Saturday Daily Mail must have really upset you.
Yes, a couple of times Jo did remember she was on TV and make a half-hearted effort to act well - but she didn't take her own advice.
Look for the shades of gray and stop towing the line behind the tabloids.
Yes, because this blog is slavishly in line with the tabloids. Do you think that I ought to start questioning what Victoria Newton writes from time to time?
You seem to love portraying yourself as an independent thinker but are just displaying the attitude of someone who has jumped on the bandwagon and agreed with papers for fear of being cast as a racist if you don't conform. A real independent thinker would actually consider other opinions and consult the evidence with a range of possible conculsions. You have closed your mind to all the possibilities that people have presented and just followed the crowd like a sheep.
I don't know if you're a regular Guardian reader, but I think I'll just answer this by quoting a piece from Zoe Williams a couple of Fridays ago:
Sorry, I am just rolling over and handing the refuseniks a piece of their most powerful weaponry - when everyone agrees, why, that's like when we thought the world was flat! Only a few brave voices stood up, and they were ridiculed! I actually had this argument on the Daily Politics with Peter Hitchens. "You can't seriously be contending," said I, "that just because all scientists say you're talking rubbish, that de facto turns you into the brave, lone voice of truth?"
Sometimes, the mass of public opinion is right - fox hunting, poll tax, weapons of mass destruction, was Jo's behaviour in the house that of a bully.
You might not think that Jo's said poor me - but the tenor of all her tabloid interviews since she has come out of the house have been precisely that. Why else would you sell a story of an alleged breakdown to a newspaper unless you are looking for pity?
Now, turning to Tasha:
Talent is quite dependant on temperament actually. Sensitivity is key to anything artistic, so she would have to be a sensitive person to be so talented and sing like she does.
(It says sensitivity is key to art in a book written by a psychologist by the way)
Oh, it's an a "book written by a psychologist" - well, if you're able to back up your point with such a clear scientific reference, I admit you've got me floored.
Sensitivity can be a key to art. But it's possible to be insensitive and a great artist - let's just open the book with Joe Orton, shall we?
Then you are judging her whole character on a couple of mistakes, (not even all of them), and none of her achievements. How can you reach a balanced judgement that way?
It's you who thinks that a commentary on a couple of weeks is intended as a judgement on her entire character - sure, I think that her behaviour for much of the time in the Big Brother house showed her to be weak, happy to go along with ganging up on a person of a different skin colour, ignorant of other ways of life and slightly nasty. And I think that she's done little since coming out other than moan about how terrible it is to be seen in these colours. I've seen precious little to change my mind. But we're all works in progress, and who knows what's to come? At least I respect her for not falling behind Jade Goody in the fooling-nobody trip to India, for example.
Jo couldn't have got a normal job to save her house either, it takes ages to get a job, and would take much longer to earn enough. That would take too long. I doubt she'd get 1000s from 3 weeks working in Tesco.
Most people live in houses which reflect their earning potential. Having been in S Club 7 dfoesn't entitle her to live beyong her means; if she's that far behind with her mortgage, maybe she should have applied to Tesco sooner.
i agree with saz!! big brother did bad editing of jo in that stupid house. jos a lovely girl with a heart of gold.... big brother was ages ago n the stupid tabliods need 2 find a article 2 upset sum1.....
LEAVE JO ALONE!!!!
FANS FIGHT BACK!!!!!!!!
Arrogant bigot alert.
Yaaaaaaaawn
Are you all crazy in Good Old England?
For example Shilpa has cooked a meal and it was partially raw. Therefore Jo made a joke about the raw food and indians. You can say it was a bad joke but it was not a general statement.
How sick must people are to take a few minutes in the live of a young woman which they don't know to start such an hate campaign?
I admit that people who have seen only the edited show don't know that Jo had fun together with Shilpa. Therefore they misunderstood some comments. But I have read a lot of comments from people who don't know Jo before CBB and the have seen the live footage and they have no bad opinion of Jo.
I have also friends in other countries. They make jokes about me and I make jokes about them. It's no big deal.
The people have condemned Jo but at the same time they show a behaviour that is much more worse. That is so dishonest.
When you are prepared to deal with the human being Jo O'Meara without prejudices you will certainly learn that she is a very lovely person.
Joe
Go Jo fans!
Here we go again, then. Can I just repeat, for what feels like the thousandth time, that just because Jo wasn't constantly bullying Shilpa doesn't excuse the times when she was. Just because Jo has done anti-bullying campaigns, and been the victim of bullying herself, doesn't excuse it.
How do you think Jo would have felt if, when she tried to stop the bullies having a go at her, people had patted her on the head and said "but they're not bullying you all the time, are they? Can't you just ignore those moments and focus on the other times?" She might have felt a little bit bereft, wouldn't she?
Jo fans, I can understand you wanting to turn a blind eye to your hero's faults. It's only natural, when we discover someone we like has a nasty streak, to try and argue that the streak isn't that bad. To make excuses.
Yes, Big Brother is an artificial environment, and yes, like all TV, it's mediated. But putting someone into a room doesn't turn a person from being a bully into a bully; and editing a programme can make someone seem worse - but even Jo hasn't suggested that she didn't take part in (what many independent viewers saw as) the racist bullying of Shilpa in the Oxo cube incident.
This isn't just a story made up in the tabloids and an Endemol edit suite. Ofcom received thousands of complaints about the behaviour of the people in the house; members of the Welsh Assembly raised it as a matter of concern with the S4C board. The police believed there was enough evidence to interview Jo - although, of course, not enough to press charges.
But anonymous from 9.07am - it's unfair to suggest that O'Meara's supporters are arrogant bigots. They're just blinded by devotion.
The book I was referring to is 'The Highly Sensitive Person' by Elaine N. Aron.
Simon h b:
It's you who thinks that a commentary on a couple of weeks is intended as a judgement on her entire character. I think that her behaviour for much of the time in the Big Brother house showed her to be weak, happy to go along with ganging up on a person of a different skin colour, ignorant of other ways of life and slightly nasty.
Yeah, it really sounds like you're not judging her. She wasn't necessarily happy to along with it, just because she didn't put a stop to it herself.
If you're not judging her on that occasion, why don't you find something to back up what you said that doesn't come from Big Brother?
Also, whatever people think Jo did in the Big Brother house, that isn't an excuse for the treatment she received, which was much worse as well.
Tasha: I've not come across Elaine Aron before, but was somewhat amused on her website that the science which underpins her self-help books comes complete with proper references - although all to her own work. As I said, though, the idea that sensitivity is the key to art is disproved by the existence of completely insensitive artists - Mark E Smith, for example; Lydia Lunch we could argue about. In my previously cited example, Joe Orton was pretty insensitive; Kenneth Halliwell too sensitive. And yet who was the artist out of that pair of lovers?
That's all by the by, anyway.
Part of the difficulty I'm having in debating with you is that you don't seem able to grasp the central point of a commentary on Jo's time in the Big Brother house. I'm looking at how she behaved in the house, what her behaviour showed, and what it tells us. Yes, of course, that requires "judgement" - but why is it so bad to judge someone's activities in a public forum? You say "Yeah, it really sounds like you're not judging her" as if judging someone is, of itself, wrong - the difference between us is you plead for me to take into account her hitherto unblemished character when viewing the Big Brother footage.
The trouble is, neither you nor I know anything about what Jo was like when she isn't in front of a camera. I'm judging purely on evidence that I'm able to place my hand on my heart and say I saw. Now, you might interpret that evidence differently, fine. But you can't tell me that there's never been any time Jo hasn't shown herself capable of casual racism or sitting around guffawing as a bully laid into a victim because you simply do not know. All you have is your projection of what you believe Jo O'Meara to really be like. And you're free to believe what you like - but I am unable to take what she was like outside Big Brother into account simply because - unlike her acquiescence of Jade's Oxo cube bullying - I have no experience of her to base that on. (NB: S Club 7 videos do not count.)
She wasn't necessarily happy to along with it, just because she didn't put a stop to it herself.
And sat there guffawing along. In the words of Morrissey: You could have just walked away, couldn't you?
If you're not judging her on that occasion, why don't you find something to back up what you said that doesn't come from Big Brother?
Because I don't need to demonstrate her capacity for indulging in racially-motivated bullying from outside of Big Brother - because she is on film, seen by millions of people, acting in that way. Your argument is like trying to defend a bloke caught red-handed stealing a safe by demanding the prosecution prove their case by uncovering another occasion when the guy stole a safe. One of the key aspects of Big Brother is that it encourages people to drop their usual masks and reveal their true selves. It's not always pleasant.
Also, whatever people think Jo did in the Big Brother house, that isn't an excuse for the treatment she received, which was much worse as well.
People saying they thought her behaviour was unacceptable is not worse than bullying in the first place. Really, the whole thing would probably have died down by now, but O'Meara is constantly being defended by people who are trying to prove that she isn't rotten to the core (which is obvious) and that she didn't do anything wrong (which is rubbish); ironically, it's her fans who are keeping the story going.
In reply to yours of 25/3/07:
Thanks for your concern but it is misplaced. My grasp of English comprehension is sound. First grade, in fact. Your suggestion that you weren't comparing Ms O'Meara to Dr Shipman is mistaken. You have associated the two and compared them. The fact that you followed this comparison with a weak disclaimer neither exonerates you nor excuses your comparison. The issue here concerns semantics. The technique you have used is false and negative association. In putting their name together you are encouraging readers to draw comparisons and associate the two. You state that Ms O'Meara's morality is not on a par with Dr Shipman's but you have implied that such a conclusion may be sought by referring to them in your use of "simple imagery." This technique is well-recognised in the field of perception studies and is often deployed by novelists, journailsts, film-makers and politicians to persuade their audiences to form good or bad opinions of their characters. It is a crude and simple technique that only fools simple-minded people. The issue here is therefore one of semantics rather than comprehension. You may benefit by brushing up on this, and may also like to consult a good grammar guide to help you correct your errors in your last and your penultimate paragraphs.
You say you have not seen or heard Jo apologise and you ask for references. I am happy to oblige. In her first GMTV interview Jo apologised for causing offense. She also released a statement that clarified her apology. This appeared on GMTV's website. In Jo's Sky News interview a third apology was shown in the full version. This full version was only aired once and further broadcasting of it was edited. It was shortened by 4 minutes and omitted her apology.
Jo said only one thing that could be [mis]construed as racist. If making a ill-judged joke that links diarrhoea, undercooked chicken and the well-known complaint of 'Delhi-belly' is deemed worthy of receiving death threats, having a nervous breakdown and being driven to near-suicide then yes, I can confidently proclaim that in my opinion it is "political correctness gone mad."
I have never bought the Saturday Dail Mail, am unfamiliar with the Junior Letters Page and feel no anguish over its loss.
I witnessed Jo taking her own advice in the live streaming of Big Brother, and I think some of it may even have appeared in the one hour evening shows. Jo spent more time with Shilpa when Jade left the house. They appeared to have more fun together and Jo was seen to praise Shilpa’s curry (as did Danielle) and to suggest that she host a cookery show after BB. Also, prior to Jade’s departure, footage showed Jo comforting Shilpa in the bathroom after another incident with Jade.
Your Zoe Williams quotation is quaint but it struggles to answer my comment. I think you were trying to say that the action of portraying oneself as an independent thinker and of daring to express a different opinion does not automatically make one correct. I heartily agree. If you enjoy reading The Guardian then I would also be pleased to refer you to an article in their archives. In February an article appeared in The Guardian Commentary titled ‘A Modern Day Witch Hunt.’ It discusses the public’s reaction to Jade Goody’s eviction and to Jade, Danielle and Jo’s behaviour in the house. It is an interesting piece of social and reception studies and is rather more relevant than your allusion to scientific debate in Renaissance Europe.
You say that “sometimes the mass of public opinion is right.” Correct. Sometimes the mass of public opinion can also be wrong. Your references to fox hunting, the poll tax and weapons of mass destruction assumes that the mass of public opinion concerning these issues is clearly defined and fits some kind of universal moral code. The debates on these issues are still very much alive and ongoing with people exhibiting a variety of opinions on these subjects and each being convinced that theirs is the correct one. They can’t all be right, can they?
Jo has not been selling her story for pity. We live in a liberal democracy where we each have a right to free speech and a right to answer criticism and to clear one’s name. To date, Jo has done 5 interviews since leaving BB. 3 were televised, and in each of these the presenters and hosts explicitly stated that Jo was not receiving a fee. 1 interview was for the Mirror. It is possible she got paid for this, I do not know. However, this newspaper misquoted her and portrayed her as a defiant woman. It was clear in that paper that if she sold that story, it wasn’t for pity (according to their depiction of her, of course). The most recent interview was for Heat magazine. I don’t know if she received payment for this interview, but I really hope she did as she has been rendered unable to work due to her ill health since BB. Jo has had to cancel shows and turn down further bookings due to her breakdown, which no-one can deny was a direct result of her post-BB experience. In light her loss of earnings I would hope she might receive some form of income in the absence of her performance fees and of compensation. Everyone in the UK is entitled to free speech and the right to work and should not be expected to live in fear for one’s life.
You also speak of Jo’s “alleged breakdown.” Anyone can see she was genuinely broken by her ordeal. I would suggest you hire a DVD or check out youtube for footage of Jo acting in S Club. Jo is a very talented singer, but her acting is not as strong. Anyone can see that her acting is not up to that of a person faking a breakdown. If you believe she was faking it in the interviews then you are really flattering her acting. If the breakdown was real (and I struggle to understand how anyone could think otherwise) then can we really be surprised at her fragile state and nervous conduct in the televised interviews? Such conduct does not say ‘poor me.’
I and many others feel for Jo’s predicament. It seems at times like the poor woman can not do anything right. When she speaks out she is vilified and when she keeps a low profile she is also vilified. She is suffering a punishment that is entirely out of proportion to her shortfalls in the house.
Caz. Thanks for your considered comments, which are the first coherent arguments I've heard from one of the O'Meara cheerleaders. You're still wrong, of course, but at least you offer some indication of how you have achieved your conclusions, for which i thank you.
Your suggestion that you weren't comparing Ms O'Meara to Dr Shipman is mistaken. You have associated the two and compared them. The fact that you followed this comparison with a weak disclaimer neither exonerates you nor excuses your comparison. The issue here concerns semantics. The technique you have used is false and negative association. In putting their name together you are encouraging readers to draw comparisons and associate the two. You state that Ms O'Meara's morality is not on a par with Dr Shipman's but you have implied that such a conclusion may be sought by referring to them in your use of "simple imagery." This technique is well-recognised in the field of perception studies and is often deployed by novelists, journailsts, film-makers and politicians to persuade their audiences to form good or bad opinions of their characters. It is a crude and simple technique that only fools simple-minded people. The issue here is therefore one of semantics rather than comprehension. You may benefit by brushing up on this, and may also like to consult a good grammar guide to help you correct your errors in your last and your penultimate paragraphs.
No, Caz, you are completely wrong. Indeed, I actually put the disclaimer in simply because I knew that some people would try and suggest I was suggesting a link betweenO'Meara's tiresome bullying antics and Shipman's capital crimes. I am ware, of course, of the technique you are suggesting I was trying to use - indeed, I use it myself in other contexts, but don't value the deaths ofShipman's victims so lightly as to try and compare the two. And, frankly, if I was trying to do that I would have used a Nazi imagery, because that would have been a better link betweenO'Meara's transgression and the criminal suggested. So, to reiterate: I was trying to demonstrate that even the most demonic of us aren't demonic all the time.
Thanks for your suggestion about consulting a good grammar guide - I'll certainly do that. As I'm sure you've noticed, there are a lot of typos,mispellings and even sentences which end up going nowhere on No Rock. I'm pretty certain everyone knew what I meant, though.
You say you have not seen or heard Jo apologise and you ask for references. I am happy to oblige. In her first GMTV interview Jo apologised for causing offense. She also released a statement that clarified her apology. This appeared on GMTV's website. In Jo's Sky News interview a third apology was shown in the full version. This full version was only aired once and further broadcasting of it was edited. It was shortened by 4 minutes and omitted her apology.
The first GM-TV interview is helpfully on the GM-TV site:
FIONA PHILLIPS: Jo, I have to say, I'm really shocked at the state you are in. You've been rocking back and forth, you're shaking, you just look like a broken woman. How are you feeling three days on?
JO O'MEARA: I'm just so shocked. I just feel shocked at the way the public... the way I have been seen and perceived, because that is not me. I don't know why they have dug me out as much people have done, because that is not the person that I am, that was shown.
FP: But you said those things. You said that Indian's are skinny because they don't cook their food properly, when Shilpa was asking for your help during that huge argument with Jade you just laughed, and after it you said, 'It's made my day'. All of those comments were yours weren't they?
JM: Yes they were, but everything has been taken completely out of context. I was laughing at the fact that the house sends you mad, as you can probably see. I was just laughing at the fact that we were arguing over an Oxo cube at the end of the day. It's just so silly.
FP: So if Shilpa came into the room right now, what would you say to her?
JM: I would give her a big hug. I didn't have anything against Shilpa at all, it's just that I probably didn't bond with her as well as I did with some others but it was never anything to do with the fact that she was an Indian woman. The things that I have said about her have not been fairly quoted, I said that I think she is probably one of the most beautiful, most glamorous woman that I have ever met, but none of that stuff has ever got across. It's just all the bad stuff, all the time.
FP: I have to say, I was shocked at how you came across in the house, always smoking, always swearing...
JM: It's the way the programme has been edited. I wasn't in my dressing gown all day long, I was showered, hair washed and dressed by ten, eleven, every single morning.
FP: You weren't portrayed very well in the Sunday papers, which didn't help matters. There was a very defiant picture of you on the front of the Sunday Mirror, saying that you refuse to apologise and that you would do it all again if there was a chance. What do you say to that?
JM: Everything that I said in that interview was completely misquoted, it really was. I don't know what I am supposed to do.
FP: Have you seen your parents yet?
An upset Jo nods her head
FP: What do they think?
JM: Devastated.
FP: Have you been home yet?
JM: I can't go home.
FP: Why can't you go home?
JM: Because I have got death threats.
FP: Has anyone from Big Brother actually tried to help you?
JM: Not really.
FP: What do you think of what they have done to you? From what I can see, they have left you completely broken.
JM: I just feel that Big Brother had a TV show to make and they have to do what they can to make good viewing and unfortunately I felt like I was a guinea pig or something, I felt like I was put in a fish tank. It's ruined my life. I just want to say to everyone, that if I did offend anybody in anyway, I never meant it at all.
FP: Do you think you bullied Shilpa?
JM: No, I don't think I bullied Shilpa at all. I really don't. I have got feelings, and I make mistakes sometimes, everybody makes mistakes but just not everybody does it on TV.
FP: Why did you do it then?
JM: I did it to try and save my house.
FP: Because, is it true, that your house is in threat of being repossessed?
Jo nods and becomes very upset
FP: Alright, we'll leave you because you really do need to get some help. It is terrible to see you like this. Thanks Jo.
There's no apology there - she claims that she never bullied anyone, and then says "if I did offend anybody in anyway, I never meant it all" - but then says " I don't think I bulliedShilpa at all". It's not really an apology if you (a) don't say sorry and (b) deny that you did anything anyway. And you accuse me of playing loose with the language!
Jo said only one thing that could be [mis]construed as racist. If making a ill-judged joke that links diarrhoea, undercooked chicken and the well-known complaint of 'Delhi-belly' is deemed worthy of receiving death threats, having a nervous breakdown and being driven to near-suicide then yes, I can confidently proclaim that in my opinion it is "political correctness gone mad."
Neat footwork - and, yes, I totally agree with you that nothing Jo did in the house should have generated death threats. But, by the same token, her behaviour was bullying, and, yes,O'Meara's comments - not a light joshing about Delhi Belly, rather "Is that why they're thin in India, because they don't cook their food properly" - were every bit as racist as JimmyGreave's constant harping on about "Montezuma's Revenge, Saint" during the Mexico World Cup on ITV.
You really did use "political correctness gone mad" like it means something, didn't you?
I have never bought the Saturday Dail Mail, am unfamiliar with the Junior Letters Page and feel no anguish over its loss.
Pity - you'd have found much to agree with during its heyday.
I witnessed Jo taking her own advice in the live streaming of Big Brother, and I think some of it may even have appeared in the one hour evening shows. Jo spent more time with Shilpa when Jade left the house. They appeared to have more fun together and Jo was seen to praise Shilpa’s curry (as did Danielle) and to suggest that she host a cookery show after BB. Also, prior to Jade’s departure, footage showed Jo comforting Shilpa in the bathroom after another incident with Jade.
Oh, Jo ate a curry? Well, that's alright then.
As I've said: Jo isn't evil, bad-to-the-core, rotten, she wasn't even bullying or xenophobic most of the time. And when she was out of Jade's orbit, she could even be quite sweet. Of course, that was after Endemol had (apparently) told the housemates how they were being perceived outside the house, but it may just have been genuine. Certainly, Jo was nowhere near as negative an influence as Jade Goody was.
Your Zoe Williams quotation is quaint but it struggles to answer my comment. I think you were trying to say that the action of portraying oneself as an independent thinker and of daring to express a different opinion does not automatically make one correct. I heartily agree.
Quaint? Apposite. You did manage to understand the point, although since you don't seem to understand how it applies to your suggestion that I somehow was following a slavish, populist line, we'll let that one go.
If you enjoy reading The Guardian then I would also be pleased to refer you to an article in their archives. In February an article appeared in The Guardian Commentary titled ‘A Modern Day Witch Hunt.’ It discusses the public’s reaction to Jade Goody’s eviction and to Jade, Danielle and Jo’s behaviour in the house. It is an interesting piece of social and reception studies and is rather more relevant than your allusion to scientific debate in Renaissance Europe.
Well, no it isn't more relevant to your claim that I was attempting to position myself as a populist - it's actually quite normal to reference items outside the immediate frame of reference in order to illuminate the debate. Never mind.
Actually, I read Brendan O'Neill's slightly silly piece at the time it was published on Comment Is Free. O'Neill's writing, as I'm sure you're aware, is often produced to position himself on the side of a lumpen proletariat against an ill-defined elite. Road pricing? That's an attack on the working classes. Attempts to price air fuel so that it reflects air travels' true costs? That's the eltie taking its revenge on the working classes, that is. And so on. The great thing about The Guardian - and why I've been reading it so long - is that it gives space to people with a wide range of viewpoints. They even have a column by Max Hastings from time to time.
You say that “sometimes the mass of public opinion is right.” Correct. Sometimes the mass of public opinion can also be wrong. Your references to fox hunting, the poll tax and weapons of mass destruction assumes that the mass of public opinion concerning these issues is clearly defined and fits some kind of universal moral code. The debates on these issues are still very much alive and ongoing with people exhibiting a variety of opinions on these subjects and each being convinced that theirs is the correct one. They can’t all be right, can they?
I think you'll find the anti-Poll Tax lobby pretty much had a single focus and won the day. The mass of public opinion was against going in to Iraq, and that proved to be right. The whole point about the "mass of public opinion" is that it's the prevailing opinion. And it can, quite often, be wrong - as you say. But the people aren't always wrong. Which is an interesting sideline.
Jo has not been selling her story for pity. We live in a liberal democracy where we each have a right to free speech and a right to answer criticism and to clear one’s name.
Sorry, I thought you were in the United Kingdom. (Sorry, socialist joke.) Actually, we live in a market economy with an unelected head of state that offers limited democratic participation, but I get your point.
To date, Jo has done 5 interviews since leaving BB. 3 were televised, and in each of these the presenters and hosts explicitly stated that Jo was not receiving a fee. 1 interview was for the Mirror. It is possible she got paid for this, I do not know. However, this newspaper misquoted her and portrayed her as a defiant woman. It was clear in that paper that if she sold that story, it wasn’t for pity (according to their depiction of her, of course). The most recent interview was for Heat magazine. I don’t know if she received payment for this interview, but I really hope she did as she has been rendered unable to work due to her ill health since BB. Jo has had to cancel shows and turn down further bookings due to her breakdown, which no-one can deny was a direct result of her post-BB experience. In light her loss of earnings I would hope she might receive some form of income in the absence of her performance fees and of compensation. Everyone in the UK is entitled to free speech and the right to work and should not be expected to live in fear for one’s life.
I was unaware that her TV appearances were unpaid; I apologise for that error. I do, however, maintain that the appearances have been an attempt to throw herself on the public's pity - which, as you say, she has every right to do. But we can't get to the forgiving until she understands why people are disappointed in her.
You're right that nobody should live in fear of one's life. Too many people do in this country. It's why we have to be vigilant and make sure we don't allow the worm of racist hatred to fester, or to let anyone get away with bullying other people offering succour to other bullies, and to exercise our right of free speech - while we're still allowed it - to ensure that even casual, ill-considered, racism and bullying is shouted down.
I did, by the way, enjoy your joke about Jo's acting. To be honest, she wasn't anywhere near as bad as Bradley was.
But you know what? You're never going to admit that Jo behaved like a bully. I'm never going to be persuaded that what I saw wasn't bullying, boorish racist behaviour. You believe her half-hearted mutterings are apologies; I see only a woman unable to apologise because she doesn't believe she's done anything wrong. It's a gulf between us, and I don't think there's any way that's going to be closed, do you?
Then you're just not open to other opinions, possibilities, or ways of interpreting the situation.
I wouldn't describe Jo as my 'hero' or say that I have been a lifelong fan. You might find this incredulous, Simon, but I actually became a fan of hers because of Celebrity Big Brother. When I saw how the media were responding to the so-called 'race row' and how the whole Big Brother machine was feeding it all, I was so afraid for her. It made me sick to see how the producers exploited the whole thing instead of protecting those involved from the hatred, the attacks, the death threats... Personally, I found most of the things that were said in the media, on the internet and on Dermot and Russell's shows more offensive than anything in the house(I really mean that). As for the interview with davina, I couldn't believe how she was playing along with it all and trying to get Jo to say she is something she isn't. The extent to which people are almost willing to be duped by the media really frightens me.
Anon: No, it doesn't. It means that, having heard a range of other attempted explanations and excuses over the last two months, none has convinced me. Of course, if someone did pop up and say "look... you can see on the YouTube video that Jo is saying 'sorry, Shilpa, run save yourself' in sign language" or something of that nature, I'd reconsider my opinion. But, really, "Jo sings pretty songs, how could she be a bully" or "she ate a curry later on without making an asinine comment" aren't the sort of antithesis that would bring forth a new synthesis.
As with anything else, there might be new evidence worth considering. I imagine the Ofcom judgement will be interesting and offer some new insights. But people repeatedly posting "well, I don't think it was racist bullying because I don't think she's a racist bully" doesn't.
Nic: well, yes, that frankly does floor me. I found a new respect for Jermaine Jackson I wouldn't have expected during the run of the series, but I'm surprised that anyone who didn't go in to the series liking O'Meara could have come out as a supporter. Still, that's good news for O'Meara, isn't it?
You're awry falling for the trap that this is some sort of media construction, though. It was in 1981 that Stuart Hall pointed out that the people aren't cultural dupes, and are sophsticiated enough to decode a media message; as a nation, in the intervening twenty-five years we've gotten better at it, not worse.
And remember where the story came from - it was Ofcom announcing the number of complaints they'd had from the public.
People also complained to OFCOM about the way Jo was being treated by the media and seemingly edited out of existence during BB. Those people received a reply from OFCOM beginning 'Thank you for your concerns about the treatment of Shilpa Shetty in the Big Brother House...'!!! This indicates that OFCOM immediately classed all complaints about CBB as complaints in favour of Shilpa, instead of actually reading them. When you consider the volume, it is not difficult to believe they couldn't read each one. Maybe the replies were automated? I wonder how many of these 40,000 complaints expressed concern about the role of channel 4 and the producers in all this? I would imagine there were a lot. I have also read on other forums that a great number of the complaints were duplicates and hoaxes. I too, look forward to hearing the outcome of that investigation and hope that OFCOM have now sorted through all the complaints with diligence and care.
Actually, anonymous, you do raise an curious point - Jo O'Meara constantly complains that she was treated unfairly by the editing of CBB. She has complained on Sky News, she has complained on GM-TV; she has complained in popular newspapers. The one person she doesn't appear to have complained to is Ofcom, who would be able to investigate complaints of unfairness. Perhaps her supporters should encourage her to take her complaints to this authority.
Interesting about the emails - clearly, it must have been an automated email; presumably, since the complaints about depiction of racism and bullying were so far outnumbering the complaints about perceived unfairness in the editing of the programme, and since all the complaints referenced the treatment of Shilpa in one way or another, they felt it was worth referencing that in the email. Or perhaps it was just an old-fashioned cock-up.
Certainly, it was complaints about racism which overwhelmed the Ofcom system, as their website reports:
Ofcom is currently receiving very high volumes of complaints alleging racism in Celebrity Big Brother 7. Visitors may experience delays or intermittent problems when trying to submit complaints.
Ofcom treats complaints about such issues extremely seriously. We will evaluate the nature of the complaints before reaching any decision, which will be published in due course. You should visit our website for updates.
Please note we will not be responding to individual complaints. A Broadcast Bulletin will be published on our website in due course. The dedicated complaint form has now been removed.
Hopefully, if it behaves as it usually does, Ofcom will consider all complaints; equally naturally, when you're getting thousands of complaints every day, you can't write an individual response to each one.
Fuck all the haters! Jo is NOT racist! The fag that wrote that is obviously a woman hater! Bashing poor Jo must make these creeps feel like BIG men! Losers! As a REAL man, I love, respect and support Jo 100% And all the girls that diss her are just a bunch of jealous HO'S!
Hang in there, Jo! Your loyal fans are behind you always!!
Love always,
Gordo.
Toronto, Canada.
Interesting approach: "I shall defend someone on charges of racism by queerbashing and allegations of sexism."
The idea that O'Meara should be above criticism because she's a woman is as pathetic as it offensive. If you really are an example of "Jo's true fans" then the poor woman has got far deeper problems than having been caught on camera joining in the bullying of another woman.
By the way: I'm bi, not gay.
Simon h b: What's wrong with Elaine Aron referencing her own research? Just because it's her own, it doesn't mean it's wrong.
Sensitivity has been mislabled as shyness etc. by psychologists, so there won't be much else under the title of sensitivity.
I'm sure that her research is accurate because I am a highly sensitive person. Her description of a highly sensitive person sounds just like me, and the experiences of her case studies are a lot like mine. I also scored highly on that self test.
The existence of a few insensitive artists does not disprove the theory of sensitivity being key to art, as there are always a few exceptions to the rule. Most artists will be sensitive, including Jo O'Meara. How could she put some much emotion into her songs if she wasn't sensitive?
A survey conducted by Elaine Aron showed that most highly sensitive people's work was something artistic. Writer and artist were the most common careers.
Since these are not common among the general population, it must have something to do with sensitivity.
It also says about sensitivity in books about writing. For example, it mentions sensitivity several times in 'Becoming a Writer' by Dorothea Brande.
Simon h b: One of the key aspects of Big Brother is that it encourages people to drop their usual masks and reveal their true selves.
You do not necessarily see the real person on Big Brother any more than you do with anyone in real life. It was not even a normal situation, it was designed to cause conflict. Also, awareness of the cameras and how many people might be watching wouldn't encourage anyone to relax and be themselves.
Tash:
What's wrong with Elaine Aron referencing her own research? Just because it's her own, it doesn't mean it's wrong.
Because the idea of a footnote and a reference is to offer support for your thesis - using your own work as a reference is a little like saying "I am right, and here is a piece of paper I've produced saying I'm right, which proves I'm right."
I've not read any of Aron's books, so don't really want to get into a conversation on the details of it - if it works for you, that's great, but a self-selecting testimony isn't really the same as a double-blind test.
You do not necessarily see the real person on Big Brother any more than you do with anyone in real life. It was not even a normal situation, it was designed to cause conflict. Also, awareness of the cameras and how many people might be watching wouldn't encourage anyone to relax and be themselves.
Yes, the house is designed to create interaction (not necessarily conflict) and, of course it's not a normal situation. But you can't engineer a situation that will turn someone who doesn't have the capacity to be a bully into one.
And from testimony of people who take part in this sort of programme, participants forget the presence of the cameras rather than remain constantly aware of them:
e.g. Grace, UK BB 2006:
Was I really stirring? I can't help it. I don't like it but you can't help it. I guess I deserve those banners. You forget the cameras in there. You don't want to have massive arguments in there so you say little sly comments.
Mel, The Salon 2003:
I don't think of the cameras anymore, it's just a normal job I do now. [...]
I actually wouldn't mind being on Big Brother because I suppose it would be the same as here - you'd forget the cameras were there after a while.
Jo, The Real Housewives, 2007:
At first it was uncomfortable because I found myself thinking about everything I said for the first hour, and then you forget the cameras are there. Then you're free to be goofy and be yourself.
But it's beside the point, anyway. Unless you're suggesting that Jo was fully aware there were cameras pointing at her while she was part of the gang of three during the Oxo cube incident?
This, though, is another distraction technique. Regardless of the situation in which it happened, Jo was part of a gang bullying Shilpa; to many observers, there was a racial element to that behaviour.
Just an extra little point on the Ofcom thing - as regards Fairness complaints they only accept them from the people affected or those appointed to do so on their behalf, so any complaints on that basis while the show was on are heading for the bin. And I don't think "not getting shown enough" counts anyway.
PS full marks to the sterotypically-named Canadian who accused people of being sexist and then said "And all the girls that diss her are just a bunch of jealous HO'S!"
Yep, you're right on the fairness thing, Chris - but you'd have thought that if Jo really believed Endemol had been unfair to her in the edit, she'd have formally complained to the regulator rather than moaned to GM-TV.
Simon h b: using your own work as a reference is a little like saying "I am right, and here is a piece of paper I've produced saying I'm right, which proves I'm right."
No, using your own work is like saying "I've been out into the world and made these observations for myself, not just read somebody else's book."
(Not that there is anything wrong with reading somebody else's book, but finding out for yourself must be better.)
That's the way scientists etc. conduct investigations anyway, how do you think they found out the stuff to put in their books in the first place?
In the back of the actual book 'The Highly Sensitive Person' there are plenty of references to other peoples work, particularly to that of Carl Jung.
What about the other books I mentioned?
Just because certain other people forgot about the cameras it doesn't mean that Jo did. From what she said in an interview about thinking cameras were still watching her after coming out of the house, I think she would have been pretty aware of them while she was in there.
Also, a real independant thinker finds things out for themselves and comes to their own conclusions, so it doesn't need to have been written down by anybody else first.
No, Tasha. You completely misunderstand the point of scientific references. The body of the book is where you show what you have discovered through your scientific enquiry; the references are where you demonstrate the work upon which you are building and which supports your theories. If you only reference your own work, it's as good as saying "I'm on my own on this one." It's something "Doctor" Gillian McKeith does. And maybe she does uses references to other people in her book, but since the website is the place where people who haven't heard of her work will form their first impressions, some indication that she's not working in an intellectual vacuum would be nice.
That's the way scientists etc. conduct investigations anyway, how do you think they found out the stuff to put in their books in the first place?
No it isn't. Scientists don't wake up in the morning and think "I know, I'll invent a new branch of psychology today." That might be how writers of self-help books work, but science is a process of building on other ideas - either adding to an earlier theory, or knocking it down.
I'm not denying there are sensitive artists. But, equally, there are completely insensitive arseholes who are brilliant artists.
The other books you mention? Dunno, you can source mine anything to help something stack up, but as I've said, I'm not really that interested in what is a bit of an intellectual cul-de-sac. To reiterate: if you find Aron's work has a positive effect on your life, that's brilliant. I don't believe that shyness and sensitivity are the same thing, and I don't believe Jo is either shy or an artist, and even if she is either or both, it doesn't mean she didn't appear on TV bullying a woman.
Let's remember Jo's reaction after Jade and Shilpa had clashed over the stock cubes: Jo said “That's made me feel better. I must say, it’s made my day.” Very sensitive.
On the awareness of the cameras issue, if Jo was aware there were millions of people watching her, that merely adds brazenness to the bullying.
On that point, though, there's a post on the News of the World CBB blog which suggests that, no, Jo really was behaving as she would if she wasn't being watched:
It was odd, watching her when she heard the "Get Jo Out" cry, that that was the first time in all her time in there that she actually seemed to be aware that there was an audience for this show. I don't think I've ever seen a less self-conscious contestant ever. She never seemed to play to the cameras. As she said, she just went in to be herself, and that was what she was, like it or not.
Simon h b: Still not found anything from outside Big Brother? Then you are judging her solely on that, as your article and some comments imply. If you can't find anything else to support your theory, and everything else points the opposite way, I would say that you are basing your entire theory on an odd result.
There was also several times on the live feed when she told Jade and Danielle to stop the behaviour towards Shilpa anyway.
On the S Club 7 series where they go backstage on their tour, it shows Jo being herself. The short biographies on some sites tell you things as well.
I'd still like to know, how could she put so much emotion into her songs if she wasn't sensitive? I think her music shows that she is sensitive, (or at least not insensitive) and music is an art form, aren't singers sometimes called artistes? So I think she is both sensitve and an artist.
Also, the fact remains that whatever people think she did, she didn't deserve to be driven to a nervous breakdown.
Tasha: Still not found anything from outside Big Brother? Then you are judging her solely on that, as your article and some comments imply.
Sorry, Tasha, I'm not looking for anything else from outside Big Brother. My blog entry was about her behaviour in the Big Brother house (as "my post implies" by, erm, saying so). And, to repeat once more, yes: I am saying that her participation in bullying Shilpa showed that at the time she was bullying Shilpa, she was a bully. It's a little like being a murderer, or a thief - you're a murderer or a thief even if you're not constantly killing or stealing.
I would say that you are basing your entire theory on an odd result.
I'm sure you would - although I'm not entirely sure what "theory" you think I have: seeing a woman be part of a group bullying someone else isn't a theory, it's more akin to eyewitnessing.
There was also several times on the live feed when she told Jade and Danielle to stop the behaviour towards Shilpa anyway.
Yes. There was also the time when she sat laughing away as Jade attacked Shilpa and said at the end "that's made me feel better." I rather think the time she joined in outweighs the times she may have tried to stop her chums.
If you can't find anything else to support your theory, and everything else points the opposite way, I would say that you are basing your entire theory on an odd result.
There was also several times on the live feed when she told Jade and Danielle to stop the behaviour towards Shilpa anyway.
On the S Club 7 series where they go backstage on their tour, it shows Jo being herself. The short biographies on some sites tell you things as well.
I'd still like to know, how could she put so much emotion into her songs if she wasn't sensitive? I think her music shows that she is sensitive, (or at least not insensitive) and music is an art form, aren't singers sometimes called artistes? So I think she is both sensitve and an artist.
Also, the fact remains that whatever people think she did, she didn't deserve to be driven to a nervous breakdown.
On the S Club 7 series where they go backstage on their tour, it shows Jo being herself. The short biographies on some sites tell you things as well.
Right... so Channel 4's Big Brother is a highly selective, mediated view of what happens, but the bits backstage on S Club 7 productions are verite, are they? And "short biographies" tell you very little - if you wish me to deny the evidence of my own eyes, why should I allow you to cite stuff written for third party websites which was probably scripted by a PR person?
I'd still like to know, how could she put so much emotion into her songs if she wasn't sensitive? I think her music shows that she is sensitive, (or at least not insensitive) and music is an art form, aren't singers sometimes called artistes? So I think she is both sensitve and an artist.
To be honest, I think you're somewhat overselling her abilities as a singer. And if her recorded career is from the heart, why did she react so badly when they played one of her own songs to her during Big Brother?
Also, the fact remains that whatever people think she did, she didn't deserve to be driven to a nervous breakdown.
If, of course, she has had a breakdown. We only have her word for it, and she also claimed that she'd been cast adrift by Channel 4 - a claim she contradicted herself.
Simon h b: If, of course, she has had a breakdown. We only have her word for it, and she also claimed that she'd been cast adrift by Channel 4 - a claim she contradicted herself.
Of course she has, it was obvious from the first GMTV interview, unless you're not believing what you're seeing now.
I've only read a transcript of the GM-TV interview; from my personal experiences of people who've experience serious mental illness, I can't think of any who would have been well enough to appear on television within a few days of a serious episode.
Simon h b: You should watch the video clip of it then, it's on Youtube. She didn't look very good on that interview, it was quite distressing to watch actually, and it's obvious she wasn't pretending.
simon h b:Right... so Channel 4's Big Brother is a highly selective, mediated view of what happens, but the bits backstage on S Club 7 productions are verite, are they? And "short biographies" tell you very little - if you wish me to deny the evidence of my own eyes, why should I allow you to cite stuff written for third party websites which was probably scripted by a PR person?
If your going to believe everything you see on shows that are supposed to be showing a slice of reality, then the S Club 7 programme shows as much as Big Brother. It also wasn't a situation designed to cause conflict.
I'm sure she was upset, but there's a world of difference between being awash with self-pity and having a serious mental health crisis.
If your going to believe everything you see on shows that are supposed to be showing a slice of reality, then the S Club 7 programme shows as much as Big Brother.
No it doesn't - that's just a ridiculous suggestion. Interestingly, if you look up the S Club 7 appearances on IMDB, she's credited as "Jo" rather than "herself", which is an interesting little distinction (Her appearances on CBB, along with her visits to various daytime chat shows and so on, are listed as 'herself'.)
You and her other apologists are desperate to try and suggest that because the CBB highlights programme is edited and mediated that that somehow invalidates the material they were editing. It doesn't. Has Jo made a complaint to Ofcom alleging unfairness in the way the programme was edited? As far as I know, she hasn't.
On the other hand, Simon Fuller's control of the S Club brand suggests it would be hugely unlikely that anything unapproved would have seeped into the S Club output.
Simon h b: You and her other apologists are desperate to try and suggest that because the CBB highlights programme is edited and mediated that that somehow invalidates the material they were editing.
That's what you seem to think about other shows that also show "reality".
Also, on the new series of Big Brother in Belgium, they've replaced half the housemates because everyone was getting on too well. They also got very low ratings. The new housemates then caused loads of trouble. This proves that they want conflict in the house, and while it's not scripted, it is highly mediated and they are trying to manipulate the people and events to make the programme more interesting.
Tash: That's what you seem to think about other shows that also show "reality".
The S Club 7 products didn't depict "reality" - it's facile to try and compare the two; there's an obvious difference between a couple of minutes specially shot for a promotional product and material extracted from a 24 hour, 7 day feed.
Also, on the new series of Big Brother in Belgium, they've replaced half the housemates because everyone was getting on too well. They also got very low ratings. The new housemates then caused loads of trouble. This proves that they want conflict in the house, and while it's not scripted, it is highly mediated and they are trying to manipulate the people and events to make the programme more interesting.
Nobody is denying the Endemol engineers a situation which causes interaction, or even that it goes too far. That's been known since the Nasty Nick incident (something, incidently, that Jo should have been aware of). But the question is a big "so what?" It might have brought out the racism and the bullying in some housemates, but it didn't make them racist or bullies in the first place. The question of if Endemol should be ashamed of themselves for leaving Shilpa open to racism and bullying is quite different from the question of if Jo O'Meara should be ashamed of herself for participating in racially motivated bullying.
Simon h b: The question of if Endemol should be ashamed of themselves for leaving Shilpa open to racism and bullying is quite different from the question of if Jo O'Meara should be ashamed of herself for participating in racially motivated bullying.
I didn't raise that question, and you don't know if it was racially motivated or not, unless you're a mindreader. I have reason to believe it wasn't racially motivated though, it could of happened to anyone.
Tasha: I didn't raise that question
No, indeed you didn't, and, of course, you're incapable of raising it because you're obsessed with trying to prove that something witnessed by millions of people didn't happen. I was raising the point in response to your citing of the Belgian Big Brother changing its line-up half way through the series to make things more interesting, which you offered (I'd assumed) to try and shore up the increasing efforts to find someone else to blame for Jo's behaviour - I was offering the possiblity that you could blame Endemol for providing the crucible but not the raw ingredients.
and you don't know if it was racially motivated or not, unless you're a mindreader. I have reason to believe it wasn't racially motivated though, it could of happened to anyone.
So, let's see... if I think it's racially motivated, I'm a midnreader, but you think it's not and you're somehow able to say this with certainty... how, exactly?
Still, it's nice that you've finally acknowledged there was something that happened. That's a little breakthrough.
However, the suggestion that bullying could have happened to anyone is possibly true - but it didn't, it happened to Shilpa at the hands of Jade, Danielle and Jo. Even Jade herself has given up trying to pretend it wasn't:
MSN:
The evicted housemate told The News of the World that she was shocked by how offensive her comments had been. "I now know that things that I may not think are racist can actually be racist. It's my own fault for not knowing enough about other people's cultures," Jade said.
So, the something Jo partook in has been acknowledged by the ringleader to have had a racist angle to it.
It's not mindreading, Tasha - it's being open-minded.
[Just as an aside, for people who've followed the comments down here thus far, the "highly sensitive person" diagnosis for shyness has been covered this afternoon by Metafilter. ]
Simon h b: it's being open-minded.
Oh really? Says the person who refuses to see any other viewpoints or interpretations.
Quoting Jade doesn't prove anything about Jo. I'm not saying nothing happened, I'm saying that Jo wasn't being racist or a bully.
I didn't say you were mindreading, that would be beyond your apparent powers of perception, you'd know the truth if you were. You don't even seem able to work out the truth from other things.
Tash: it's being open-minded.
Oh really? Says the person who refuses to see any other viewpoints or interpretations.
No, Tash, what you mean is that I disagree with you and your lame attempts to suggest that because Jo joined in the bullying on CBB, we should ignore it because she can carry a tune, or hasn't been publicly caught bullying elsewhere, or because Belgian TV changed its cast of Big Brother halfway through. I'm more than happy to change my mind when offered a compelling argument, but please don't confuse the fact that your desperate attempts to try and excuse Jo's behaviour haven't worked with a broader mental inflexibility on my part.
Quoting Jade doesn't prove anything about Jo
I wasn't quoting Jade to "prove anything about Jo" - I was quoting Jade to demonstrate that the ringleader of the key occurence of bullying admitted that her behaviour - and hence the bullying - was racially motivated, a thing that you had claimed you had "reason to believe" wasn't true. ("you don't know if it was racially motivated or not, unless you're a mindreader. I have reason to believe it wasn't racially motivated though")
I'm not saying nothing happened, I'm saying that Jo wasn't being racist or a bully.
Then what was it that happened? How would you describe the ganging up of three people on another, with one yelling and the other two sitting there giggling away like they were at the sealion circus; how do describe Jo's reaction after the incident?
I didn't say you were mindreading, that would be beyond your apparent powers of perception, you'd know the truth if you were.
You said it would be mindreading to know that what we saw was racially-motivated bullying. So, yes, you did say I was mind-reading. I'm afraid your connection to any concept of "truth" is vague to say the least - you are incapable of seeing past your admiration of O'Meara to allow that she screwed up badly here.
You don't even seem able to work out the truth from other things.
But what "other things" do I need to judge an incident on, other than having witnessed the incident? You haven't offered a single "other thing" to counter the simple, undeniable truth that Jo sat while Shilpa was being bullied, encouraging Jade by giggling away with Danielle, refusing to help when Shilpa offered her the opportunity to do something with some backbone, and her comments straight after. That the person who instigated the bullying has admitted her behaviour in the house was racist.
You keep banging on about what Jo may or may not be like in S Club 7 videos, but that doesn't change the facts of the incident which is under discussion.
Did you notice that the celebrities were very high profile this time? Let's say that channel 4 took a risk by spending between $500 000 - $1000000 getting the celebrities to take part. To make a return on an outlay of $1 million in three weeks is not easy. They had to do something drastic. When the programme first started, the viewing figures were low and I think it made the producers panic. When the whole 'racism' crap started, they siezed on it as their chance to get viewing figures up and get their money back.
High profile? Are you joking?
- The lead singer of the Towers of London
- The second least-famous member of a US TV series ensemble from the 1980s who spends much of his time hanging around those Sci-Fi events offering to sign photos for a fiver
- One of the rest of the Jacksons
- Someone from Steps
- Someone from S Club 7
- A pop star who had his heyday in the late 1970s who moved to Australia without any noticing
- A woman famous for letting people take pictures of her tits
- A columnist from the Sunday Mirror
- Someone purely famous for having been on the show before
- The mother of someone purely famous for having been on the show before
- The boyfriend of someone purely famous for having been on the show before
Ken Russell and Shilpa Shetty are both fairly high profile, but I suspect neither meant very much to the Big Brother audience.
Where, exactly, is the high profile line-up?
Simon h b, the only bully and hate monger here is you. You can try all you like, but you cannot alter the facts of the situation. There was no bullying or racisim commited by Jo O'Meara, and if you don't know that, then you are mentally deficent.
And yes, I am a fan of Jo's, and I don't need some jackass hack like you to give me your lame ass comments about Jo or her fans. I bet you don't have any, do you?
And of course you're bullying Jo, who is a woman, and that makes you a loser and a woman hating jerk!
Jo didn't do anything even remotely close to bullying or racism. The show was set up like a WWE wrestling match! FAKE! Jo was set up to take the fall to enhance Shilpa. She was in on it, which is clear by her repeated asking of "Jo! Are you going to say something?" She was tryng to draw her into the fight with Jade, but Jo didn't take the bait!
As for refereeing the fight, who made Jo a police officer? Was she suposed to bethe CBB bouncer or security guard?
Jo is innocent, and was unjustly framed to be the scapegoat in this setup! Anybody who believes otherwise is a retard.
I'm a Simon HB fan. And anyone who says he is [insert critisism] is [insert derogatory epithet]. There, that looks like a valid defense doesn't it?
Amazing Gordo (shouldn't you be preparing to move in to number 10):
Simon h b, the only bully and hate monger here is you.
Erm... okay, then.
You can try all you like, but you cannot alter the facts of the situation. There was no bullying or racisim commited by Jo O'Meara, and if you don't know that, then you are mentally deficent.
Righto. I'm a mentally deficient hatemonger. Um... what about sitting around making up racist limericks? The "they're all thin in India because they're unhygenic" comment? And Ofcom's conclusion that "However, [Lloyd and O'meara]'s comments extended to generalisations about Indians as a race and therefore had the potential to be viewed as stereotyping Indians as a race and offensive by many." Perhaps Ofcom are also mentally deficient hatemongers, too?
And yes, I am a fan of Jo's, and I don't need some jackass hack like you to give me your lame ass comments about Jo or her fans.
I'm sure you don't. You don't think my opinions are worth the energy they take to type. So why are you so angry?
I bet you don't have any, do you?
I would have said no, but Webbo has come through for me. If I find another, I'm going to start a fan club. With super code wheels and everything.
And of course you're bullying Jo, who is a woman, and that makes you a loser and a woman hating jerk!
I'm not bullying her by simply commenting on her behaviour in public. And if you seriously believe that a man cannot criticise a woman without being a misogynist, then really, I would suggest that your opinions are so poorly thought-through as to be worth engaging with. "Jo is a woman, so to criticise her makes you a woman-hater"?
Jo didn't do anything even remotely close to bullying or racism. The show was set up like a WWE wrestling match! FAKE!
You don't appear to understand the discredited argument you're trying to make here. The supposed point of saying that "it was a set up" is to suggest that, rather than being a racist bully, Jo wandered into a trap set up by Channel 4. Wrestling, as children aged four and above are aware, is actually scripted in advance. If CBB was "set up" like a WWE match, then Jo would have been working from a script and wouldn't have been so surprised when she was evicted to discover that she'd been rumbled.
Jo was set up to take the fall to enhance Shilpa. She was in on it, which is clear by her repeated asking of "Jo! Are you going to say something?" She was tryng to draw her into the fight with Jade, but Jo didn't take the bait!
You don't actually believe this, do you? Who did this "setting up"? Was Jade Goody controlling everything from an underground bunker?
As for refereeing the fight, who made Jo a police officer? Was she suposed to bethe CBB bouncer or security guard?
Nobody has suggested anything about "refereeing" the fight - she could have said something like "stop it", or walked away; if she was so "cleverly not taking the bait" why did she then sit there giggling away, and make the "I needed that" remark at the end? Or was that a convincing lookalike sitting in an identical studio cut in by Channel 4 as part of their secret plan to ruin the chances of an S Club 7 comeback tour?
Jo is innocent, and was unjustly framed to be the scapegoat in this setup! Anybody who believes otherwise is a retard.
Actually, Gordo, calling people "retards" is hugely offensive. But then someone who can watch a woman being bullied and not realise what they're seeing probably doesn't have any sensitivity to people with mental health problems.
I never said I was insensitive to your problems did I?
Actually Simon h b, trying to make Jo O'Meara into the next Hitler is hugely offensive to me, and all of her fans! It should also be hugely offensive to any right thinking person.
Of course CBB were working from a script, but not eeverybody was in on it. Jo sure wasn't, and likely neither were Jade or Danielle, although it is possible.
It seems so obviously set up and weird how all the so called "incidents" didn't actually directly involve Jo at all.
You may not have had a lot of experience with girls, but they do tend to engage in girl-talk about other girls. Most don't do it on live TV, but they do it.
As for Jo's remarks, she NEVER said "they're all thin in India because they're unhygenic" What she said, was actually "do you think they're so thin because they undercook their food?" This was in referance to Shilpa's burning and undercooking a chicken. (Which was also part of the set up!)
That's a BIG diference to what you tried to make people think she said. The only comment remotely close to anything about hygene was when Jo complained about SHilpa sticking her hand in other people's food. Which is not only unhygenic, it's rude and disgusting!
THAT proves you are just a hate monger with an agenda. You misquote Jo and lie like hell! You may think you're all eloquent, but by trying to spread this sort of filth, you are proving yourself a fool!
Playing the race card to promote Shilpa was the name of the game, and the innocuous comments made were nothing you wouldn't hear in any dormatory or school. But you're trying to twist everything to make Jo out as a bad person, which she isn't.
Nobody with an ounce of brains will ever believe your garbage, and no one with an ounce of integrity would do what you do!
In clossing, I must advise you strongly to get a life, because being a sour grapes hate monger isn't much of a life.
Gordo, thank you for taking the time to respond again. Let's see what you have to say, shall we?
I never said I was insensitive to your problems did I?
It took me a moment, to be honest, to work out what you meant, then I got it - it was your oh-so-witty way of responding to me pointing out that calling people "retards" is especially offensive in the 21st century. And - ho-ho - your reaction was to say "I'm not insensitive". Calling me a retard! Oh, how the hours must fly at your house.
Actually Simon h b, trying to make Jo O'Meara into the next Hitler is hugely offensive to me, and all of her fans!
I'm sure it would be. Who has done this? Because that would be a massive overstatement - although, to be honest, the over-reaction of certain sectors of O'Meara's fanbase to her being caught out in moments of thoughtlessness and unpleasant you might assume that some people had been claiming that.
It should also be hugely offensive to any right thinking person.
Well, to be frank, I don't think it would be as "hugely offensive" as using the term "retard" as a casual put-down, and "right-thinking people" is shorthand for "everyone who agrees with me" and meaningless. But, yes, if anyone, anywhere, is claiming that O'Meara is starting to put in place a systematic process of industrialised murder against certain groups in society, I will happily condemn that.
It's not happening, though.
Of course CBB were working from a script, but not eeverybody was in on it. Jo sure wasn't, and likely neither were Jade or Danielle, although it is possible.
If by "script" you mean they have story editors and conferences, well, yes, so does Springwatch. But if you're suggesting that the interactions in the house were predetermined, then you're simply wrong. Especially since there'd have been no point in people setting out to "get Jo" in some way.
But let's just assume, for a moment, there was a mystery plan that some of the housemates were working to - and that, despite the fact that Endemol, Brighter Pictures and Channel 4 leak like a bucket with no bottom, somehow this has managed to remain secret. So, they engineered a situation, Jo wasn't aware she was being set up...
... and still did the 'funny Indian voices', still sat around laughing her head off as Jade bullied Shilpa, still refused to help when Shilpa asked her to say something to reduce the tension, still said that she 'needed that', still sat around making up limericks based on the word 'paki'. So, even if she was set up, and walked in to a situation that she wasn't aware was manufactured - she still behaved in the way that she behaved. So, what would be your point?
It seems so obviously set up and weird how all the so called "incidents" didn't actually directly involve Jo at all.
So-called incidents? Gordo, do you read through this stuff before you post it to the internet? These so-called incidents happened on television, in front of millions of people. And Jo? Jo was involved. Not the ringleader, but she played her part.
By the way, if Celebrity Big Brother was set up to destroy Jo for... reasons which nobody has managed to yet explain... why did they not show the limerick, and, indeed, kept it out of the public domain until the Ofcom investigation? (Perhaps you missed the transcript?)
You may not have had a lot of experience with girls, but they do tend to engage in girl-talk about other girls. Most don't do it on live TV, but they do it.
Are you suggesting I'm gay or a virgin here? Gordo, you're such a tease, with your 1970s attitude to disability and sexuality... I'm starting to understand why you don't think Jo's done anything wrong.
This, by the way, was just pointless - it's like saying "well, people sit in chairs outside the big brother house". It doesn't alter the content or tone or what was said; you might think that people being bullies or racists away from television cameras is fine. I don't.
As for Jo's remarks, she NEVER said "they're all thin in India because they're unhygenic"
No, she didn't, Gordo. It was a precis of what she said.
What she said, was actually "do you think they're so thin because they undercook their food?"
Yes... they're thin because they're ill because they undercook their food because they're unhygenic.
This was in referance to Shilpa's burning and undercooking a chicken. (Which was also part of the set up!)
Yes, Gordo, I'm well aware what caused Jo to suggest the Indian nation was thin because they don't cook their food properly - it's not important; the problem was with the stereotyping of an entire nation with a derogatory comment based on a false assumption about them as a race. It's racism, that. Mild racism, not on a par with the sort of stuff you'd read in a fascist magazine, but still racist.
Even if it was part of this magic set-up. You really do believe that, don't you? How do you see that working? Would Shilpa have been taken into a room at Horseferry Road, and given a briefing
-"okay, so, four or five days in, we need you to cook a chicken. But only for forty-five minutes..."
-"but that... that would still be pink inside..."
-"just do it, Shetty. It's part of the plan..."
Was it part of the big secret plan to get Channel 4 given the strongest reprimand ever delivered to a mainstream network? Are the grovelling apologies at the start of the programmes in BB8 part of it? Was the need to try and put the broadcasting of racist bullying behind it, causing the Channel to drop the prices of calls to the point where it will cost the broadcaster up to 25% of its revenue all part of some carefully scripted scene? And how come if the bloke with one eye can come back to life, why doesn't his eye rejuvenate? Oh... sorry, that last one is from Lost. I was getting my apparently pointless conspiracies confused for a moment, there.
That's a BIG diference to what you tried to make people think she said. The only comment remotely close to anything about hygene was when Jo complained about SHilpa sticking her hand in other people's food. Which is not only unhygenic, it's rude and disgusting!
You think it's hygenic to eat badly-cooked food I suggest you steer clear of a career in kitchens or shops. But, thank you for reminding us of Jo acting so squeamishly when an Asian woman touched her food. Did she object to anyone else in the house touching her food?
Funny that.
Oh, and let's just take a quick look at that cooked chicken incident again:
Jo: Maybe that's how Indians cook chicken, no wonder Indians are so skinny because they always have the runs
Danielle: They use their hands to, or is it the Chinese?
Jo: Don't know, I don't like that
THAT proves you are just a hate monger with an agenda. You misquote Jo and lie like hell! You may think you're all eloquent, but by trying to spread this sort of filth, you are proving yourself a fool!
I don't need to prove myself a fool, I like to think that can be taken on trust.
For the record, I don't hate O'Meara. I was bitterly disappointed to see that someone who I had assumed to be a fairly good-natured person, albeit one with little focus, turned out to quite happily sit about making up racist limericks, laughing as people got bullied, and showed herself to be so ignorant of the world beyond the end of her nose. I was angry - not especially angry, just, you know, I'm doing a few blog entries, so I might as well blog this angry - that O'Meara tried to recast herself as some sort of victim.
Since then, I've only returned to the subject here, in response to comments, mostly made by the Pro O'Mearas, and when Ofcom published its findings into the racism allegations. If I was mongering hate against O'Meara, wouldn't I be constantly posting about it? Wouldn't I be calling for her head on a plate, or for her to never work again?
There's too much hate in the world - which is why even mild racism needs to be pointed at, and called for what it is.
And, sorry, did you just use "eloquent" as an insult?
Playing the race card to promote Shilpa was the name of the game, and the innocuous comments made were nothing you wouldn't hear in any dormatory or school. But you're trying to twist everything to make Jo out as a bad person, which she isn't.
It's that some people believe the nasty behaviour of Jo, Danielle and Jade is the sort of thing that not only happens in schools, but thinks that that makes it okay, and thinks its okay that it happens in schools in the first place is what makes this so dispiriting.
Nobody with an ounce of brains will ever believe your garbage, and no one with an ounce of integrity would do what you do!
How do you weigh integrity? And shouldn't it be in grammes these days because of the European Union?
If you believe that even people with just 2% of the average human brain would read my posts and not believe them, why are you so challenged by them? Are you afraid that there are so many fifteen-sixteenth of an ounce brainers out there to make a difference?
And, good lord, if calling a woman who should have known better for behaving like a bully on television undermines one's integrity, we really have gone to hell in the proverbial handbasket.
In clossing, I must advise you strongly to get a life, because being a sour grapes hate monger isn't much of a life.
Oh, I don't know, Richard Littlejohn seems to be doing pretty well out of it.
(Sour grapes? Am I supposed to have wanted to be in S Club 7? Or on television? Or in Big Brother? Or did you just mean envious?)
Still, thank you for the advice that I should get a life - you really should look into getting some sort of trademark on that, Gordo, it sounds like the sort of phrase which could catch on. But can you tell me, when you want to live how do you start? where do you go? and who do you know?
Simon,
You admit that Jade goody was the "ring leader," but yet you call your article "Who will speak up for Jo O'Meara?" You have singled Ms. O'Meara out, and since she was the most innocuous by far, it puzzles me why you would do that.
Gordo makes many valid points. For instance, Shilpa Shetty was an unknown in the UK and north america, but became a household name after the CBB shows. SHe even met the Queen and the Prime Minister spoke of her! Wow, not bad for winning a stupid tv game show.
The racist/buying victim stunt made poor little bullied Shilpa a big name, and that was exactly why her managers and the CBB producers cooked this whole thing up. It was all designed to make her famous. Even the choice of "bullies" was obvious. Jade Goody is a notorious loud mouth. Danielle was likely picked because she was a beauty queen, and would be competitve with Shilpa. And lastly, Jo O'Meara's S Club 7 TV character was fiesty and tough! Pity that the real Jo O'Meara is anything but! and that was where the plot went awry.
They must have told Shilpa to bring Jo into the fight if she didn't jump in on her own, which is precisely what happened.
Remember when Shilpa started the big Oxo cube argument? Recall how she asked: "Jo, aren't you going to say anything here?" Jo didn't get involved, and so she tried to bring her into the fight, which didn't work.
There are so many times when the show was edited, and pieced together to make poor litrtle Shilpa into an innocent victim. She was neither innocent or a victim. She was in on it with her handlers and the CBB execs. It's obvious that Jade, Danielle and Jo were not. And if you are driven to committing an act, then you are only half guilty. The rest of the blame must fall on Shilpa and her people, and CBB.
Jo was not racist or bullying in any way, shape or fashion, but from what I've seen of you so far Simon, you aren't one to let a little thing like the facts or the truth change your closed little mind.
I'm afraid that you aren't going to pay attention to these facts, because you clearly have it in for Jo O'Meara. But I am not going to engage you repeatedly like Gordo does, because you are full of it pal, and that's clear to anybody who reads all the hateful bile that you put into this slanted article you wrote.
Try to not be so hate filled, and stay away from that raw chicken too. It will give you gas! And you seem to be full of enough of that already!!
Tinfoil hats! Get yer tinfoil hats here! Three for a fiver, luvverly tinfoil hats, get 'em while they're hot, deflect those mind-altering waves, defeat the Illumintati, one size fits all, etc
Angel, angel, down we go together:
You admit that Jade goody was the "ring leader," but yet you call your article "Who will speak up for Jo O'Meara?" You have singled Ms. O'Meara out, and since she was the most innocuous by far, it puzzles me why you would do that.
Why would I do that? It's interesting that you're able to unpick some sort of top-level conspiracy involving Endemol, Shilpa Shetty and Ofcom, and yet you're not able to work this out. In case it needs spelling out:
- This is a music blog, which focuses on musicians and singers, their lives and careers. Jade Goody hasn't made a record, and so what she may or may not do is only of incidental interest as far as No Rock & Roll Fun goes.
More to the point
- This post, 'Who will speak up for Jo O'Meara' was originally written in response to a story carried in the Metro on January 30th, where Sarah Ferguson expressed her support for O'Meara. She didn't express her support for Lloyd or Goody, but expressly for Jo. Hence the post is titled 'who will speak up for Jo O'Meara' because the post was inspired by someone speaking up for Jo O'Meara.
Gordo makes many valid points. For instance, Shilpa Shetty was an unknown in the UK and north america, but became a household name after the CBB shows. SHe even met the Queen and the Prime Minister spoke of her! Wow, not bad for winning a stupid tv game show.
This isn't a point, as such, it's an observation - although, actually, Shetty was already pretty well-known in the UK through the Bollywood movies she's appeared in.
The racist/buying victim stunt made poor little bullied Shilpa a big name, and that was exactly why her managers and the CBB producers cooked this whole thing up. It was all designed to make her famous. Even the choice of "bullies" was obvious. Jade Goody is a notorious loud mouth. Danielle was likely picked because she was a beauty queen, and would be competitve with Shilpa. And lastly, Jo O'Meara's S Club 7 TV character was fiesty and tough! Pity that the real Jo O'Meara is anything but! and that was where the plot went awry.
Sadly, earlier today I was listening to Jon Ronson's programme on Radio 4 where Derek Shayler claimed that we should at least consider the proposition that the July 7th 2005 bomb explosions on the tube were actually the results of an accident and that the Tavistock Square bus bomb was a stunt using actors to ensure the government wouldn't be held to account for coporate manslaughter, so I can't claim this is the most outlandish thing I've read all day. But it is the second most. No, third, after the processing huts at Glastonbury.
There are lots of places where this argument falls to pieces, but here's a few challenges to it:
If the idea was really to set a group of racist bullies on Shilpa to make her look 'good' and win the competition on a wave of sympathy, why would they have chosen Danielle and Jo? After all, there's no reason in anything else that in the public domain to suggest that Jo would be a bully - indeed, as people have strenuously pointed out here, over and over again, Jo had an anti-bullying stance and has appeared in anti-bullying educational aids. So, why, if Endemol were attempting to engineer a situation where Shilpa would be bullied, why would they choose Jo instead of someone with a more aggressive profile?
(The only answer to this that would make any sense, of course, would be because Endemol knew that Jo had a bullying streak - so, the choice is yours: abandon the conspiracy theory, or abandon the claim that Jo isn't a bully.)
Second: There were more than four people in the house - how come none of the others were involved in this scheme? Or were they all briefed, too? Did Dirk Benedict have a secret role that we won't come across?
Crucially, though: Endemol didn't transmit the worst example of the racism - the creation of a limerick based on the word "Paki", of which Jo was a part. If there was a secret plan to make people feel sorry for Shilpa, why did this - which would have swung many people behind her - not only remain off the air, but was also denied?
They must have told Shilpa to bring Jo into the fight if she didn't jump in on her own, which is precisely what happened.
Remember when Shilpa started the big Oxo cube argument? Recall how she asked: "Jo, aren't you going to say anything here?" Jo didn't get involved, and so she tried to bring her into the fight, which didn't work.
Or, perhaps, Shilpa was disgusted that an adult woman was sitting, laughing along as she was being bullied, and was offering Jo a chance to say something - anything - to defuse the situation.
You might remember that Jo's reaction was to do absolutely nothing at all, but allow Jade to continue her tirade. If O'Meara hadn't wanted to be Goody's tool, she could simply have said something that showed she didn't approve of what was happening. As I said to Gordo, regardless of if this was a honeytrap or not, she still didn't do anything and made that little comment at the end about how much she "needed that."
There are so many times when the show was edited, and pieced together to make poor litrtle Shilpa into an innocent victim. She was neither innocent or a victim. She was in on it with her handlers and the CBB execs. It's obvious that Jade, Danielle and Jo were not. And if you are driven to committing an act, then you are only half guilty. The rest of the blame must fall on Shilpa and her people, and CBB.
Hang about... was the bullying created by editing or by the trio of racist bullies being goaded into it by Endemol and Shilpa? Make your mind up.
And, no, if your reaction to someone cooking a meal for you is to announce that Indian people are thin because they don't cook their food properly, or to sit squawking your head of as your buddy bullies a woman, it doesn't mitigate your behaviour. But I thank you for at least admitting that Jo O'Meara is "half guilty" of being a bully - it is refreshing that at least one person has the guts to admit at least some culpability on her part.
Jo was not racist or bullying in any way, shape or fashion
Hang about... she was half guilty a moment ago.
, but from what I've seen of you so far Simon, you aren't one to let a little thing like the facts or the truth change your closed little mind.
As I've said countless times before, Angel, what you and the O'Meara lobbyists are asking me to do is set aside the evidence of my own eyes to agree with some evolving conspiracy theory. Assertions such as "the CBB producers and Shilpa cooked up a plan and invited Jo because she played a feisty character on a kids' TV show five years ago" (I'm paraphrasing, by the way) isn't a "fact", and it certainly isn't "truth".
However, I attempt to treat such howling as if it was at least a valid argument, and offer arguments in return, which are simply ignored for another round of shouting how Jo never done nuffink and how horrible and tiny minded and hate-filled I am.
What you have are convictions, and theories, and they are demonstrably false. But when anyone points out the weakness of your theories, you simply shout back that facts are being ignored.
I'm afraid that you aren't going to pay attention to these facts, because you clearly have it in for Jo O'Meara.
Perhaps I am actually an Endemol executive... maybe I set up this blog in 2001 as a secret prelude to this moment, to make it look more convincing? Perhaps Simonhb is an anagram of Shilpashetty, more or less?
I had no axe to grind about O'Meara before Celeb Big Brother - I was quite fond of S Club 7.
But I am not going to engage you repeatedly like Gordo does,
Gordo posted twice, which is hardly "engaging" anything repeatedly. And he seemed to post substantially the same thing twice, only the second time with a sense of bitterness that I hadn't suddenly changed my mind when presented with "facts" of some sort.
because you are full of it pal, and that's clear to anybody who reads all the hateful bile that you put into this slanted article you wrote.
Try to not be so hate filled, and stay away from that raw chicken too. It will give you gas! And you seem to be full of enough of that already!!
Yes, it was "slanted" - because this is my blog, and I use to express my opinions. I don't think taking a stand on something is necessarily a bad thing. And being accused of being hate-filled by apologists for racist bullying is just a little ironic.
Jo is not a racist or bully, and
she did say shes sorry even though she had nothing to be sorry for! It's just a case of very bad editing and them making her sound the way thay want her to.She would never bully someone heck she was constantly bullied and got the crap beat out of her when she was younger so she would never treat or do that to someone else. And for thoes of you who think she didnt have any consecuences out of it she got death threats and suffered a nervous breakdown because of all the hatred being throwen at her, shes afraid of everything even people because of what you all have done to her. YOu call her a racist and abully you need to take a look at yourselves because what do you think your doing when your throwing all this hatred at her. If Itwould have been betweenher and another white it would have been considerd a little fight and nothing more would have been thought of it
but since it was with some one of another race it was autimatically blown way out of proportion and you all should be ashamed of yourselves for what you have done to her and the way youve been treating her!
CJ - for about the sixteen thousandth time, the editing did NOT make Jo look worse than she was. Channel 4 didn't show the worst incident - the "paki" limerick. It's a bit odd if they had an agenda to make her look awful that they didn't use the killer footage.
It's terrible what she's had to deal with as a result of her actions. But things you do have consequences. She could have stepped in; she could have walked away. Instead she sat and laughed.
Post a Comment
As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.