Jackson Garlick - Sharp Haircut/Bulging Biceps - Bachelorette Australia - Angie Kent - Season 5 - *Sleuthing Spoilers*

Viewers have tipped him as one of Angie’s perfect suitors, but it seems Jackson Garlick could be more interested in chasing fame than finding true love.

A show insider reveals the 25-year-old sales executive and footy player has a bit of a reputation in his hometown circles.

“He’s a massive player around the eastern suburbs of Sydney and he is definitely not on the show for the right reasons,” claims a source.

Jackson snagged a one-on-one date with Angie but their romantic escapade turned to disaster when the former Gogglebox star got motion sickness during their helicopter ride.

While Jackson’s caring and sweet response to Angie’s plight earned him a kiss, and later, a rose, the insider reveals the blue-eyed suitor might not be as genuine as he appears.

“The girls he hangs around with are nothing like Angie. She’s not his type and everyone who knows him knows that he is on the show simply for his profile. He’s desperate to be a famous influencer,” said the source.

“Jackson’s a classic playboy footy player. Everyone was shocked to see him on the show as he’s not ready to settle down! Especially with an older woman. He loves playing the field in both ways.”

We sat down with our eliminated Bachelor, Jackson! pic.twitter.com/PExPvEdfuT

— #BacheloretteAU (@BacheloretteAU) November 8, 2019

Astrobach wrote:@Idlemess   Good one !

I had a flash thinking of him and Brittany ( Conga  girl...) what do you gals think ? Would it be a good match on BIP?

Idlemess wrote:My question to Jackson is who does your eyebrows?

Just Looking wrote:

Astrobach wrote:@Idlemess   Good one !

I had a flash thinking of him and Brittany ( Conga  girl...) what do you gals think ? Would it be a good match on BIP?

OMG, no.  His family would not be impressed IMO.  I think, even if Jackson is a bit of a player st the moment, he will have very traditional views when it comes to a life partner.   JMO of course

Just Looking wrote:@Vjeff I don’t understand this