Forum menu
yes I've thought that, im a solicitor and deal with barristers all the time - with few exceptions they are always very impressive people; super sharp, witty and articulate. And in the case of KC's even more so. (That's why I had high hopes for Starmer but I digress...)
This made me laught. 
Reference the Barristers, I don’t think they got the chance Harriet I reckon just had enough of the show and wanted out. I had experience of working with, against and taught of barristers at work. One who is at an extremely high level working with the government is all I can say, he was a fascinating character spent a few days training with him. The tiny small details he picked up on and used to try to discredit evidence or plant doubt was brilliant.
Looking forward to tonight’s episode but I’m out tomorrow night so will have to catch up with the final.
They need to murder Faraaz - he’s got it all sussed out.
They can then argue…
a) it would be too obvious.
b) James is trying to set Rachel up as he’s ‘obviously’ a traitor.….
….they’ve no other real option.
I hope clueless, random Roxy goes soon! I'm not invested in any of them since Jessie went.
I’d honestly like Rachel and Stephen to win - they’ve played a good game between them.
I’d honestly like Rachel and Stephen to win - they’ve played a good game between them.
They've played the game brilliantly
Stephen is going full on for Rachel 😁
Stephen is going full on for Rachel 😁
I can see the two of them being touted at the round table and at least one voting for the other.
Dog eat dog innit 👍
Taken Roxy out made sense, causes confusion. Leaving Farazz was risky but sensible as he was pointing at the Rachel so would have backfired. Yeah the traitors have played brilliantly though out this, but seem ready to throw each other under the bus.
Steven had his chance and muffed it. Depending if she stays, of course - but he might think she now owes him, she'll burn him out given the chance.
Was that just too convenient a cliffhanger?
Convenient how? That they want to make sure you tune in tomorrow?
Just being an old cynic I guess 🙄
Big mistake to murder the comically hopeless Roxy instead of Faraaz.
Better to kill him, then front it out with a more credulous group.
Faraaz and Jack FTW, I reckon.
Yeah reckon so on balance, Roxy was convinced they were both faithful by, err, asking them. Though others may have turned on Rachel what with Faraaz’s much too late observations.
Reckon if Rachel gets banished, Stephen’s a shoe in for the win, reckon he’ll still be there with faraaz and Jack
If James goes, it’ll be an unpredictable bloodbath.
Could see jack going in the same way that Joe Marler was done in the celeb one, everyone thinks he’s strung them all along, right til the last second, think everyone’s had suspicions of Jade at some point, those that went for Rachel tonight will again, why Faraaz’s sudden interest in Rachel?, and Stephen hasn’t shaken the cage/library incident fully.
Faraaz’s much too late observations
Too late for what? He is in the final. Arguably the best time to get rid of traitors is right at the end.
Stephen had a golden chance to bin Rachel with the 2nd vote , I'm sure if the tables were turned she wouldn't have missed that opportunity.
comically hopeless Roxy
I think she was on the verge of a breakdown in the show.. Looked and behaved substantially healthier in the after show. She was the only contestant in the series that did not have the footage of her opening the bit of paper that showed her finding out who the traitors were despite her comments when she got killed making it such a potentially delicious "I am such a dullard" highlight moment worth savoring. My hunch is it would have made bad TV watching someone falling apart.
Given her background I suspect she carries some pretty serious rejection hangups and I'm not convinced she was healthy enough to be on the show.
Too late for what? He is in the final. Arguably the best time to get rid of traitors is right at the end.
If he’d started talking to folk earlier about her, he might’ve been able to convince more folk to vote for her. Not sure Stephen would have grassed him up.
as it is there’s a risk of going into the final with 40% of the remaining people being traitors. Might not happen, but could have been avoided.
My hunch is it would have made bad TV watching someone falling apart.
Sounds right to me.
Stephen had a golden chance to bin Rachel with the 2nd vote , I'm sure if the tables were turned she wouldn't have missed that opportunity.
this
Arguably the best time to get rid of traitors is right at the end.
It's the only time you can get rid of them, if you get rid of them (collectively) then they just recruit or in this made for TV version they'd have to appoint someone else - you can't say it's against the rules because they just make up / change rules as they go. And the game doesn't work if there are no traitors (which would be relatively obvious if no murders for a couple of days)
What would round tables be then - banish someone because of an annoying eating habit, or slightly shitter at money collection tasks (although maybe that might be interesting and a whole load more damaging psychologically 'I love you and you're an amazing person but I voted for you because your whole personality is just grating')
OK, you can get rid of them as individuals and that's 'The Game' but actually the best approach as a faithful I think is identify the traitors, keep it to yourself, go along with others to banish other faithfuls and then deliver the knockouts in the last day or two. Not a million miles away from Faraaz's game so far, whether by accident or design.
which would be relatively obvious if no murders for a couple of days)
Is it that there are no traitors, or that they are recruiting?
As above, I thought Stephen missed a golden chance to get Rachel out. He may yet regret not taking that chance. Rachel, clearly, (IMO) seems to lash out when she is on the ropes, maybe she thought she waltz into the final as she’s everyone’s favourite faithful and is now flustered and flummoxed to find that tide is turning.
So, let’s all have a sweepstake…..
I think Stephen is going to win, as in it’ll be him and a n other traitors.
Is it that there are no traitors, or that they are recruiting?
That's why I said a couple of days, a day or maybe two could be seen as recruiting but if murders just stop, then = no traitors
And while the (lack of) rules allow it the producers can hardly keep inventing spurious 'because of X there won't be any murdering again tonight'
I have a feeling the traits that make Rachael quite good at this would also make her a pretty vile person to have in your life, either as a work colleague or a life partner.
make her a pretty vile person to have in your life
Really, you've taken that from watching a TV program about lying that she has played quite well? I actually think she is really showing the strain the last couple of episodes but as everybody has already decided she was a faithfull went largely unnoticed.
Really, you've taken that from watching a TV program about lying that she has played quite well?
Yep. Not from the lying part (that's the game). But she has a very aggressive and quite vindictive streak. Her concept of ambition or competitiveness I suspect is climbing over people/ throwing them under a bus.
Her concept of ambition or competitiveness I suspect is climbing over people/ throwing them under a bus.
What other concept of competitiveness is there?
What other concept of competitiveness is there?
That's a red flag question right there!
There is a promotion available at work and you and another person are up for it. If your primary MO to you being the one to get it is to shine a light on the other person's failings rather than focussing your efforts on making sure all your own positive attributes are on show, you are one of 'them'. My hunch is Rachel is one too.
There is a promotion available at work and you and another person are up for it. If your primary MO to you being the one to get it is to shine a light on the other person's failings rather than focussing your efforts on making sure all your own positive attributes are on show, you are one of 'them'. My hunch is Rachel is one too.
Seriously? She is in a gameshow, playing a game, trying to win a prize.
Seriously? She is in a gameshow, playing a game, trying to win a prize.
You've clearly not been impacted in your life by a Louise. Once you have, you know the signs.
I suspect it's her middle name.
You've clearly not been impacted in your life by a Louise. Once you have, you know the signs.
Clearly not. At least you seem to understand that you’re projecting massively, and quite probably unfairly, onto Rachel.
Objectively, as in from what you can appreciate beyond the fact she is only on TV, behind an edit, and is playing a role (apart from when she is being interviewed alone which I think are the more revealing moments) - do you think she seems like a person you'd like?
I think I'd like Stephen. He's in the same situation as Rachel (playing a traitor) but instinctively I think he comes over as someone who in real life would be sound. Rachel (to me) not so much. Or even a little bit.
I think Rachel will get voted out regardless of the coin-toss outcome. I don't think Stephen will get to the end. Faraaz doesn't trust him and Jack will go with Faraaz. Can also see them voting out Jade, just to be on the safe side.
Hopefully, they'll vote off James on general principle. Truly the scariest person there: utterly convinced he's correct, gets proven wrong over and over, then just jumps on the next idea with every bit as much certainty. He's this year's Maddy.
You've clearly not been impacted in your life by a Louise.
Ohh I have. Rachel doesn't come across anything as much like a Louise as the Louise I was three months away from marrying when I found out she was shagging our mortgage advisor (and I found out on the day we were meant to be exchanging on our house when the bloke's son came to my house to tell me). 🤣
There’s a fundamental difference between being strategic and persuasive vs being dishonest.
This is a game, where the whole point of being a traitor is to be dishonest. It’s quite possible for someone to have a strong moral compass in real life, and for them to ignore it for the purpose of a game. In fact that’s part of the fun.
Part of the problem with the faithful, IMO, is that they’ve not grasped that fact. They didn’t with Alan Carr, and they don’t seem to have done in this series either.
And yet they voted her person who'd make the best traitor at one point - can't think why they didn't vote her out immediately after that. Even if it were collateral damage, it would have been the smart thing to do.
... you’re projecting massively, and quite probably unfairly ...
This has been the entire gameplan of the faithful since the start as far as I can see, except not onto Rachel, but the rest of their own gang.
I think the difference as a viewer over being a player is that you have the advantage of knowing what 'the act' is. I think it makes it a lot easier to 'appreciate' the underlying personality of the player over and above the character they are playing in the castle. We are also privy to the private interviews. Obviously, we are also clouded by the producer's edit which can skew reality.
The whole point of the academic social experiment the programme was based on was to demonstrate the power of the informed minority over the uninformed majority. To that end keeping the faithful clueless and tilting at windmills is the very point. I've found it equal part frustrating and entertaining watching faithful after faithful make total arses of themselves with their incorrectly placed absolute certainty based on **** all. You'd hope you'd be more measured if you were in there, but they don't appear to be stupid people - perhaps it's just a failing of the human condition.
This is a game, where the whole point of being a traitor is to be dishonest. It’s quite possible for someone to have a strong moral compass in real life, and for them to ignore it for the purpose of a game. In fact that’s part of the fun.
I can't remember what the interview was, or who it was about (great story this!) but google says Marc Guehi at the England WC squad hotel in 2022 - they had Werewolves style contests going on through the time they were in camp, and Guehi struggled because with a traditional Cote Ivoire background, a Father who was Pastor of the church, etc. his culture made being deceptive very hard. We've had a few vicars / priests on so far, they've managed well enough.
As did MG - because he then won the 2024 Traitors in the Euros camp, in his own words because no-one believed he could be anything but trustworthy. Fast learner, clearly.
we are also clouded by the producer's edit which can skew reality.
Edit is one thing, I also wonder at how the producers actually manipulate the game. An obvious way is in the round tables, presumably someone very smart / maciavellian is in Claudia's earpiece telling her when to call time for a vote. A few times someone's brought up something, others have then just started to explore and the Vote is called. Is that to stop the theory evolving? Maybe so that as people vote that the theory is front of mind. The round table rarely if ever goes on to a consensus, or where all debate has been had.
But equally - stopping people talking by bringing-in cameras or calling time to do something; or equally any manipulation of getting people to go into specific rooms to third wheel a conversation that's getting a bit too close.