• Welcome to the discussion forums. To get posting, register an account.
  • FYI: The site will be unavailable for much of Sunday 21 December and possibly Monday while we do some maintenance 🔧

Episode Day 4 (11/09/14) Daily Show

15 minutes in here, they're really asking Priya for her money? Would they also ask for housemates' outside savings if BB said that could be spent in the house?
 
Enjoying catching up on all of the commentary here because I missed tonight's show. It was very inconsiderate of my friends to want to socialise while BB is on, plus I forgot to set the recorder 😖
 
15 minutes in here, they're really asking Priya for her money? Would they also ask for housemates' outside savings if BB said that could be spent in the house?
I think they believe it's their money (potentially they could have won it if they were final winner).
 
They've been given an ethics question: who owns the money? It comes down to how they think about the prize money. If they consider it "their" money to be won, of course they're pissed that it's been given away and of course they'd want to now have a vote in how it gets used. If, on the other hand, they step back and try to understand the reality of the situation, they'd see that the money belonged to Big Brother, who chose to offer it to Priya and Katie. They accepted the offer, so now they own it, and they don't owe anything to the other contestants because it was never the others' money.

It's really interesting seeing the stance taken on this by all the housemates. It says a lot about them as people, I think.
 
Oscar Pistorious not guilty. Hopefully Channel 9 can shut the fuck up now.

Of murder, which makes sense.

For murder you generally need the actus reas and the mens rea.
Essentially do the act which caused the death. CHECK
Mentally have planned to do that and kill them. Not so CHECK.

We know he killed her but the fact she is locked behind a door, you can assume he may have intended to kill it through her, but how do you prove that? However you can definitely decide that a reasonable person would not be shooting through a door not expecting to not harm or kill. Or take the reasonable steps to even know who was there.


But this is consistent. They had a fight, he's a violent angry guy and he just reacted and shot at the door. He probably had no intention to kill her but it was just a violent act.
 
He's hot, i'd let him shoot (all over) me.
d9YpHmnGFp1ny.gif
 
15 minutes in here, they're really asking Priya for her money? Would they also ask for housemates' outside savings if BB said that could be spent in the house?
Well, it isn't the same thing, this money is cash in hand accessible in the house. If I were going hungry so you could have money, I would make you miserable, because I would be mad. I don't think I would ask for money, I would just express my anger.Not saying it is a good look or a smart play, but, there it is.
 
My view is that because BB asked priya and Katie, the minute those two agreed it's actually their money.

BB is playing mind games with Priya & Katie.

I think once Priya & Katie are evicted, they will get the $10,000 that they won.
 
I wrote this in another thread, but look at it this way. These two girls took $20,000 from the winner. The winner could be any of the other house mates.

So why exactly is it fair for them to take money from the winner? But not fair at all for any housemates to want to take any part of that 20 grand from the girls?
 
Did anyone else enjoy this episode? I thought it was great even though it centralised around the food and money debacle. We're slowly starting to see how people are acting and Katie really seems to care about how she is perceived by the looks of things. There was too much airtime for the power hm's.... looking back on it I don't think I saw anything regarding Aisha, Ryan and some of the others.

Really interesting to see how the money has divided the house especially Priya who doesn't seem willing to share or use the diner.
 
Of murder, which makes sense.

For murder you generally need the actus reas and the mens rea.
Essentially do the act which caused the death. CHECK
Mentally have planned to do that and kill them. Not so CHECK.

We know he killed her but the fact she is locked behind a door, you can assume he may have intended to kill it through her, but how do you prove that? However you can definitely decide that a reasonable person would not be shooting through a door not expecting to not harm or kill. Or take the reasonable steps to even know who was there.


But this is consistent. They had a fight, he's a violent angry guy and he just reacted and shot at the door. He probably had no intention to kill her but it was just a violent act.

I actually know nothing of the case other than the basics. You're right about the murder charge, of course.

Speaking of BASICS

He's hot, i'd let him shoot (all over) me.

Absolute MESS

girl-falls-7-l.gif
 
Lol. Voice or pronunciation...

Edit: the way he talks is frustrating for me

Probably pronunciation lol - I don't know, it just grates on me.
I don't know if you remember the show Full Frontal that used to be on tv - there was a guy who used to do a parody of John Howard lol - Travis' voice reminds me of him (I know that's random).

 
Back
Top