How can someone be warned for admitting they are having difficulty getting their head around Frank becoming Kellie? We all applaud Kellie for showing her true self and openly admire her for the struggle and confusion she has had for years. Why is it so wrong for other people to struggle with Kellie's identity. It's more PC BS I am afraid.
These warnings are so bizarre and arbitrary, I'm surprised the HMs even bother going to the DR to receive them, sometimes.
I wish he'd have turned around and said, 'I don't accept your warning on account of the fact that it's bollocks'
Must have been a complete mindfook for him to see Kellie like that and I do wonder if a lot of my 'acceptance' of her has to do with me never ever knowing her as a guy called Frank.
So basically Audley gets a warning for saying he is having difficulty coming to terms with a bloke he has known for years wanting to become a woman albeit in a rather clumsy way. I am not sure BB will have done Kellie any favours with that come Friday.
Do you think BB should have to obey the same rules as every other show on tv, or should there be some kind of special exemption?
I think the audience are mature enough to realise the views of contestants are not the views of the producers/show nor are being validated by the show. We are also mature enough to make up our minds about the acceptability of comments/behaviour and vote (if we so choose) accordingly. I'd rather a disclaimer air before the show or segments rather than warnings be issued that restrict/alter the behaviour of HMs given the nature of the show.
The bad part was the bit about not wanting to share a bath. Imagine saying that to a black person in the 60s where it was taboo to share a pool with a person of color. It's totally self-explanatory to me.
Is it an official warning or informal warning? I mean it's got to be difficult on the guy accepting such a dramatic change after so long. Big Brother should of already considered his reaction and understood a bit better rather than stamping on his honest and imo quite understandable reasons.
I'm all for Kellie going through with her transformation but big brother should be a bit more understanding in regards to someone who has, as Kellie would put it, known her as Frank for a long period of time. Kellie is in the wrong for calling him transphobic, she's simply not accepting the fact it will be difficult for others to come to terms with.
As for the bath issue, I'd hate to share a bath with anyone, since someone pointed out to me you're simply bathing in your own dirt I've gone right off them :P
These warnings are so bizarre and arbitrary, I'm surprised the HMs even bother going to the DR to receive them.
Must have been a complete mindfook for him to see Kellie like that and I do wonder if a lot of my 'acceptance' of her has to do with me never ever knowing her as a guy called Frank.
I've followed boxing for years, seen Frank on telly loads of times and twice at actual events. And he keeps reappearing every time Kellie gets in a verbal scuffle. So if i'm finding it difficult to "see Kellie" it must be nigh impossible for someone who's known him so well for many years.
If BB is going to issue reasons over nomination reasons, then surely BB should tell the housemate at the time of nominating that their reason is not valid etc.
He only got a warning because Kellie said to Audley that he was being transphobic and broke down in tears. If she hadn't said that, he wouldn't have been warned.
Very low blow from Kellie, she probably knew what would happen.
Why does he have to be punished for being honest about his feelings. ....
Because, in the sort of language Ofcom uses, warnings are among the "editorial mechanisms" BB can use to give a "context" that "justifies" showing "potentially offensive" material.
But unless it's a formal warning, it doesn't mean all that much. Indeed, do we even know there was a warning? BB can call a HM to the DR and speak to them about something they've done without warning them. That a news article calls it a warning doesn't mean it actually is one.
legally Kellie is a male, until Kellie has a sex change & is able to change the birth certificate.
Is she? I thought what you enact the transition process, you're to be referred to as female. Biologically, she is male. Not sure about the legality of it.
Is she? I thought what you enact the transition process, you're to be referred to as female. Biologically, she is male. Not sure about the legality of it.
Legality is a bit iffy. There have been occasions where birth certificates have been changed without full surgery.
I think the audience are mature enough to realise the views of contestants are not the views of the producers/show nor are being validated by the show. We are also mature enough to make up our minds about the acceptability of comments/behaviour and vote (if we so choose) accordingly. I'd rather a disclaimer air before the show or segments rather than warnings be issued that restrict/alter the behaviour of HMs given the nature of the show.
Ofcom takes into account the nature of BB and of its audience, and has a very reasonable view of those things, it seems to me (based on Ofcom's explanation of their decision re the Jade / Shilpa CBB.)
Ofcom seldom finds against BB, and when it does, it's usually re something that many in the BB audience were outraged by, such as Conor's extremely nasty rant about Deana.
I don't think Ofcom's judgements have been out of line with the nature of BB or the BB audience.
But ultimately, it's a condition of C5's broadcasting licence that it's shows conform to the code that Ofcom enforces. The complaints just bring something to Ofcom's attention. So it comes down to this: do you think BB should have to follow the rules that every other show on tv has to follow, or should there be a special exemption?
So it comes down to this: do you think BB should have to follow the rules that every other show on tv has to follow, or should there be a special exemption?
Would a disclaimer not conform with these rules then?
Warned for having a open, honest and frank reason?.......Well done Big Brother!.....:p
I agree JennaJ, I thought Audley spoke in a non confrontational, non judgmental way, he just said it as it was for him. I don't ever recall Frank/Kellie saying he was on hormones, I do remember him saying he still was physically a male. Franks own brother says he never knew and only read about it in the newspapers just before CBB started which rather suggests that Frank has not been living as a woman at all other than in private or away from anyone who knows him.
Frank/Kellie shows no interest in the girls in the house as in their clothes, their makeup etc. He does however speak to them in an unfortunate and misogynistic way and even squared up to at least one.
He swaggers like a carpet fitter, i.e. walks as if carrying a roll of carpet under each arm, he snarls often and seems to be looking for a fight with everyone and talk like Fagin.
No wonder Audley didn't want to share a bath with him, I wouldn't either.
Damn. But that wasn't deliberate. It was Freudian in the sense that I was thinking of posters insisting that she is male and I've read things like "she still has her bollocks." Ugh.
Exactly. If you can make a slip, how much more likely is it that someone who's known him for decades now meets her.
My sister decided to change her first name when she was in her fifties. Perfectly reasonable but my other sister finds it hard to remember and finds it difficult to use the new name. Is she sister-phobic, name-phobic, something else phobic? I don't think the phobic label should be thrown around. It will become devalued. Let's keep it for people who really intend to cause offence.
Political correctness gone mad. He's perfectly entitled to say he feels uncomfortable around Kellie *even* if it's over the issue of her being a transsexual.
The bad part was the bit about not wanting to share a bath. Imagine saying that to a black person in the 60s where it was taboo to share a pool with a person of color. It's totally self-explanatory to me.
Hang on a minute.....I thought that Audley meant sharing a bath literally, ie them both being in the bath together?
If I'm right, then I can understand that because he has a long-term partner and Kellie's a woman.
I didn't take it AT ALL to mean that Audley didn't want to use the same bath that Kellie had bathed in, lest he 'catch' something!!
Can someone clarify please - if they're able to?
EDIT: Additionally, given the more rancid tone of some of the beliefs held by Kellie when she was Frank, I'd have thought she'd be the very last person to be calling anyone out on any 'phobias' of that nature.
legally Kellie is a male, until Kellie has a sex change & is able to change the birth certificate.
Under UK law you don't have to be post-operative to apply for change of gender certification. It can be done after a two year transition period provided other tests are met.
Exactly. If you can make a slip, how much more likely is it that someone who's known him for decades now meets her.
My sister decided to change her first name when she was in her fifties. Perfectly reasonable but my other sister finds it hard to remember and finds it difficult to use the new name. Is she sister-phobic, name-phobic, something else phobic? I don't think the phobic label should be thrown around. It will become devalued. Let's keep it for people who really intend to cause offence.
That's not what Audley did. Leslie made that slip. It was aired. I thought nothing of it.
Audley said he didn't want to share a bath with Kellie and linked it to her current status... how is that not transphobic? Seriously, I need an explanation because it set off immediate alarm bells in my head. I'm not saying Audley is transphobic. I've never made those claims; even after his comment, I think he just expressed himself poorly. But that was a transphobic remark to me and if it plays out like the little clip that we saw, then I think the warning is justified. And I don't often agree with the warnings for comments.
Is it an official warning or informal warning? I mean it's got to be difficult on the guy accepting such a dramatic change after so long. Big Brother should of already considered his reaction and understood a bit better rather than stamping on his honest and imo quite understandable reasons.
I'm all for Kellie going through with her transformation but big brother should be a bit more understanding in regards to someone who has, as Kellie would put it, known her as Frank for a long period of time. Kellie is in the wrong for calling him transphobic, she's simply not accepting the fact it will be difficult for others to come to terms with.
As for the bath issue, I'd hate to share a bath with anyone, since someone pointed out to me you're simply bathing in your own dirt I've gone right off them :P
What was Frank's behaviour to anyone coming out as gay boxing or in general how did he respond to issues of transgender. Because if Frank wasn't so open, how can she expect others to be so accepting overnight. It's not fair to call someone transphobic just like that. Audley doesn't have a campaign of hate towards her and is not influencing anyone's opinions or laughing at her or ridiculing her.
Comments
Exactly - you can't blame complainants for BB's own cock ups.
These warnings are so bizarre and arbitrary, I'm surprised the HMs even bother going to the DR to receive them, sometimes.
I wish he'd have turned around and said, 'I don't accept your warning on account of the fact that it's bollocks'
Must have been a complete mindfook for him to see Kellie like that and I do wonder if a lot of my 'acceptance' of her has to do with me never ever knowing her as a guy called Frank.
I think the audience are mature enough to realise the views of contestants are not the views of the producers/show nor are being validated by the show. We are also mature enough to make up our minds about the acceptability of comments/behaviour and vote (if we so choose) accordingly. I'd rather a disclaimer air before the show or segments rather than warnings be issued that restrict/alter the behaviour of HMs given the nature of the show.
I'm all for Kellie going through with her transformation but big brother should be a bit more understanding in regards to someone who has, as Kellie would put it, known her as Frank for a long period of time. Kellie is in the wrong for calling him transphobic, she's simply not accepting the fact it will be difficult for others to come to terms with.
As for the bath issue, I'd hate to share a bath with anyone, since someone pointed out to me you're simply bathing in your own dirt I've gone right off them :P
I've followed boxing for years, seen Frank on telly loads of times and twice at actual events. And he keeps reappearing every time Kellie gets in a verbal scuffle. So if i'm finding it difficult to "see Kellie" it must be nigh impossible for someone who's known him so well for many years.
Because, in the sort of language Ofcom uses, warnings are among the "editorial mechanisms" BB can use to give a "context" that "justifies" showing "potentially offensive" material.
But unless it's a formal warning, it doesn't mean all that much. Indeed, do we even know there was a warning? BB can call a HM to the DR and speak to them about something they've done without warning them. That a news article calls it a warning doesn't mean it actually is one.
Legality is a bit iffy. There have been occasions where birth certificates have been changed without full surgery.
This warning is unwarranted in my opinion, it's clear to anyone that Audley is not homophobic.
I thought what Kelly said to Leslie was far more offensive.
Or perhaps what Kelly once said about people such as Audley when he was Frank, and part of UKIP.
Ofcom takes into account the nature of BB and of its audience, and has a very reasonable view of those things, it seems to me (based on Ofcom's explanation of their decision re the Jade / Shilpa CBB.)
Ofcom seldom finds against BB, and when it does, it's usually re something that many in the BB audience were outraged by, such as Conor's extremely nasty rant about Deana.
I don't think Ofcom's judgements have been out of line with the nature of BB or the BB audience.
But ultimately, it's a condition of C5's broadcasting licence that it's shows conform to the code that Ofcom enforces. The complaints just bring something to Ofcom's attention. So it comes down to this: do you think BB should have to follow the rules that every other show on tv has to follow, or should there be a special exemption?
geesh, in that case Dee should get a warning as well !>:(
Would a disclaimer not conform with these rules then?
I agree JennaJ, I thought Audley spoke in a non confrontational, non judgmental way, he just said it as it was for him. I don't ever recall Frank/Kellie saying he was on hormones, I do remember him saying he still was physically a male. Franks own brother says he never knew and only read about it in the newspapers just before CBB started which rather suggests that Frank has not been living as a woman at all other than in private or away from anyone who knows him.
Frank/Kellie shows no interest in the girls in the house as in their clothes, their makeup etc. He does however speak to them in an unfortunate and misogynistic way and even squared up to at least one.
He swaggers like a carpet fitter, i.e. walks as if carrying a roll of carpet under each arm, he snarls often and seems to be looking for a fight with everyone and talk like Fagin.
No wonder Audley didn't want to share a bath with him, I wouldn't either.
My sister decided to change her first name when she was in her fifties. Perfectly reasonable but my other sister finds it hard to remember and finds it difficult to use the new name. Is she sister-phobic, name-phobic, something else phobic? I don't think the phobic label should be thrown around. It will become devalued. Let's keep it for people who really intend to cause offence.
If I'm right, then I can understand that because he has a long-term partner and Kellie's a woman.
I didn't take it AT ALL to mean that Audley didn't want to use the same bath that Kellie had bathed in, lest he 'catch' something!!
Can someone clarify please - if they're able to?
EDIT: Additionally, given the more rancid tone of some of the beliefs held by Kellie when she was Frank, I'd have thought she'd be the very last person to be calling anyone out on any 'phobias' of that nature.
Really hope she goes on Friday.
Under UK law you don't have to be post-operative to apply for change of gender certification. It can be done after a two year transition period provided other tests are met.
Its not iffy - it is set out in statute.
Audley said he didn't want to share a bath with Kellie and linked it to her current status... how is that not transphobic? Seriously, I need an explanation because it set off immediate alarm bells in my head. I'm not saying Audley is transphobic. I've never made those claims; even after his comment, I think he just expressed himself poorly. But that was a transphobic remark to me and if it plays out like the little clip that we saw, then I think the warning is justified. And I don't often agree with the warnings for comments.
What was Frank's behaviour to anyone coming out as gay boxing or in general how did he respond to issues of transgender. Because if Frank wasn't so open, how can she expect others to be so accepting overnight. It's not fair to call someone transphobic just like that. Audley doesn't have a campaign of hate towards her and is not influencing anyone's opinions or laughing at her or ridiculing her.