not necessarily. I think the more pertinent legal question is not whether there has been a breach of contract re the HMs (I am sure they have that covered :rolleyes:) but whether the public has been mislead given we have been playing the game, which has involved spending our money to vote, only to have the rules of that game changed so close to the end. If indeed Brian did tell us at the beginning that the winner would walk away with 100k - and that is not now the case how does that leave our part in the game?
Valid point, I'm not disagreeing just that the winner would have a stronger case against them.
I am concerned about ‘Big Brother’ UK’s manipulation of the £100,000 prize fund.
Brian Dowling (BB host) said, at the beginning of the series and within several minutes of the ‘Big Brother Live Launch’ broadcast: …In less than three months time, one of the chosen few will be crowned your champion and walk out of that very house with a whopping £100,000 prize.
Many people, including myself, have voted believing that statement to be true. However, last night the producers of ‘Big Brother’ revealed via the programme’s spin-off show ‘Big Brother’s Bit on the Side’ their intention to offer HALF of the prize fund to two contestants before the finale and without a public vote.
Given that Channel 5 have accrued revenue on the basis of the above verbal contract and the series byline: “You decide” (referring to telephone voting), I deem Channel 5 misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.
Thank you in advance for your time.
Love it, I think that hits the nail right on the head, hopefully Ofcom will get stuck into them.
On the opening show Brian Dowling said 'in less than three months time one of the chosen few will be crowned your champion and walk out of that very house with a whopping £100,000 prize'
He didn't say might or could, he said will,.
Funny how a lot of posters take the time and effort to defend Channel 5 in what amounts to little short of sharp practise. Giving half the prize money away to undeserving HMs is ridiculous.
At least last year they split half the money among 5 HMs - even if their own verbal agreement was broken by liars and cheats.
BD is not the issue, he could be a mechanical voice, it's the company he works for that is responsible for what he said legally.
Viewers may be voting to save, but the vote also gives their choice the change to win. It would be like placing a bet on a roulette wheel for someone else & leaving that bet running, until the final spin of the wheel it is entirely uncertain that your friend will win anything, but you place the bet in the hope that on the final spin they will be lucky. What BB are doing is saying bet on your fav for their chance to stay in/ win, except they've now taken the money that they said they would pay out and given it to some shady mate of theirs lurking at the side of the table.
People were led to believe that the winner would get £100,000, all they would need to say is that they only voted because that is what they were led to believe would happen in the event their fav won, & now that's not happening.
I know you think that voters don't have a contract, but the person buying the chocolate bar enters into a legally binding contract, his till receipt being his proof. Every phone or facebook vote leave a receipt and involves the formation of a contract.
People would not be laughed out of court, taking money under false pretenses is serious stuff, BB would be hard pressed to claim that they had kept to their original stated offer on votes to save & on final week votes to win it would be C5/Endamol that would laughed out of court.
But this is the point your vote each week however you may feel that your vote contributes it is stated very clearly that your vote each week is to save that housemate from eviction on the Friday night eviction. And that is all that your money goes to. You aren't voting for who is going to win £100,000 as much as you may like to believe that you are. As when the eviction is over, the public's votes are back to 0 and stand for nothing in relation to who is going to win the show. Big Brother has taken nobodies money off them under false pretenses.
Funny how a lot of posters take the time and effort to defend Channel 5 in what amounts to little short of sharp practise. Giving half the prize money away to undeserving HMs is ridiculous.
At least last year they split half the money among 5 HMs - even if their own verbal agreement was broken by liars and cheats.
Yep totally, it always narks me when they split the prize but last year was a million times fairer than this year. For me this year they've gone way too far, pushing sharp practice and abuse of the public into more serious stuff & they need to have their wings clipped for good.
Yep totally, it always narks me when they split the prize but last year was a million times fairer than this year. For me this year they've gone way too far, pushing sharp practice and abuse of the public into more serious stuff & they need to have their wings clipped for good.
And only choosing three to go into the white room. Every HM shoud have had a chance. I guess they had to see which was the best way to make to play it to ensure golden boy got in there.
But this is the point your vote each week however you may feel that your vote contributes it is stated very clearly that your vote each week is to save that housemate from eviction on the Friday night eviction. And that is all that your money goes to. You aren't voting for who is going to win £100,000 as much as you may like to believe that you are. As when the eviction is over, the public's votes are back to 0 and stand for nothing in relation to who is going to win the show. Big Brother has taken nobodies money off them under false pretenses.
It's really down to perception, you can see it that way but on a roulette wheel it goes back to zero after each spin too, except your friend has moved one step closer to the target. Your line would carry weight if BB had not stated the aim of the game at the start.If the purpose of the game was to 'stay in' your argument would carry weight, but the aim is to win, to be 'crowned your winner', so you cannot disconnect any vote to save from that potential stated result. Any voter could be choosing to vote only so that their target might achieve that stated prize. BB would have to prove legally that the two things, voting to save & winning, are unrelated.
Obviously they are not unrelated, no-one nominated can win if people don't vote to save them, so voting to save must also carry the implication that they might win and as now they can not win the prize stated it must mean that they've contradicted the basis on which people voted.
And only choosing three to go into the white room. Every HM shoud have had a chance. I guess they had to see which was the best way to make to play it to ensure golden boy got in there.
Yep, it should have been fair and open. We might not have liked who won, and it might have still been in breach of what they stated but it would have at least appeared to be sort of honest to the housemates. What they've done just smacks of a stitch up, with the losing HM and the public being the victims.
But, you're contradicting yourself by even watching the show. If nobody voted, there would be no show.
By watching, you support people voting, as the format wouldn't work without public votes.
I don't agree. Watching a show and voting in the show are two different things. This show has already been paid for through adverts. The votes are just extra.
It's really down to perception, you can see it that way but on a roulette wheel it goes back to zero after each spin too, except your friend has moved one step closer to the target. Your line would carry weight if BB had not stated the aim of the game at the start.If the purpose of the game was to 'stay in' your argument would carry weight, but the aim is to win, to be 'crowned your winner', so you cannot disconnect any vote to save from that potential stated result. Any voter could be choosing to vote only so that their target might achieve that stated prize. BB would have to prove legally that the two things, voting to save & winning, are unrelated.
Obviously they are not unrelated, no-one nominated can win if people don't vote to save them, so voting to save must also carry the implication that they might win and as now they can not win the prize stated it must mean that they've contradicted the basis on which people voted.
In law though, you can't really put a case forward based on perception. it's factual. And since Channel 5 have never said that your vote will contribute to who is in the final and who could win the show and the £100,000 money that would be the deciding factor. Also, it's worth noting that the advertisement of the telephone vote will also state that terms and conditions apply and that by phoning and voting you are agreeing and accepting these terms and conditions-I'd highly recommend to everyone to obtain a copy of and read the voting terms and conditions before challenging Channel 5 for any legal wrong-doings.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the splitting the prize money is a good move and certainly don't agree with it on any level. But it is, unfortunately, at worst misleading to the public and that is all.
And only choosing three to go into the white room. Every HM shoud have had a chance. I guess they had to see which was the best way to make to play it to ensure golden boy got in there.
There was some manipulation ie changing from fewest noms all series to fewest noms by F&F. With the first option, Adam would have made it to the WR.
It's not conditional on BB's cartoon rules when it comes to real voting lines and real money.
If the viewers have been misled then there really is a case to answer for.
Because one of the regulations BB must uphold is that they make it clear to the voters what the deal is.
If they mislead the viewers where the exchange of money is concerned then 'BB rules' are simply meaningless.
It's not conditional on BB's cartoon rules when it comes to real voting lines and real money.
If the viewers have been misled then there really is a case to answer for.
Because one of the regulations BB must uphold is that they make it clear to the voters what the deal is.
If they mislead the viewers where the exchange of money is concerned then 'BB rules' are simply meaningless.
Nobody has voted for the winner yet, they have voted to save for one week only
Nobody has been voting for the winner and nobody has been voting for someone to win £100k. You are just voting to save a particular housemate each eviction. CH5, BB and Brian Dowling haven't breached any rules.
And as many others have already pointed out, they can change the rules whenever they like, that's why I never vote and won't hand over any of my money to them.
It's not conditional on BB's cartoon rules when it comes to real voting lines and real money.
If the viewers have been misled then there really is a case to answer for.
Because one of the regulations BB must uphold is that they make it clear to the voters what the deal is.
If they mislead the viewers where the exchange of money is concerned then 'BB rules' are simply meaningless.
But they haven't mislead anyone. Every week they make it perfectly clear that you're voting to save a housemate.
BB can change the rules at any time, but the £100,000 prize money was stated as a fact. This is not part of the rules. We all understood that the winner would get £100,000 and on that basis we decided who deserved it and voted accordingly.
its nothing to do with the 50 grand that you don't agree with, it is the fact of who might be getting it, your smokescreen has failed
Given that we all have a fav or fav's it's highly likely that the brown envelope white room winner will be disliked by most, the fact that they chose only to announce the prize twist when they had two fairly unpopular HM left sort of guarantees that most people won't like it.
If my fav had had a fair chance of winning I'd sort of accept it.
Had only two of my fav's had a chance I'd have said it was totally unfair but probably not complained to anyone.
But the fact that I hate the two concerned is just that added incentive to do something about an injustice.
In each case the public would have been conned, but we tend to let people walk all over us & that's what companies know, but with this 'twist' they've conned us, laughed at us and spat on us & it's time they were brought down a peg or two.
Something is only binding when two parties have signed and agreed on documentation to terms and conditions. The viewers have signed no contract to C5 and therefore the viewers are at the mercy of C5 if they wish to spend there money on voting.
The only person who has anything 'binding' with C5 is the housemates, however I would presume the contract they signed with C5 will state quite clearly that Big Brother reserves the right to change the rules at any time.
A point worth remembering that very little is legal unless it is on paper. Verbal statements stand for almost nothing in the eyes of the law.
Source; I've worked in Contract Law for two years.
that isn't correct -
I agree it comes down to levels of proof and as such legal right is more easily proved if things are in writing. However, verbal contracts do exist and can be as binding as written contracts - especially when you have video and audio recordings of said agreements. Its not quite as simple as "its not in writing and its not signed therefore its not binding".
Comments
Valid point, I'm not disagreeing just that the winner would have a stronger case against them.
Funny how a lot of posters take the time and effort to defend Channel 5 in what amounts to little short of sharp practise. Giving half the prize money away to undeserving HMs is ridiculous.
At least last year they split half the money among 5 HMs - even if their own verbal agreement was broken by liars and cheats.
But this is the point your vote each week however you may feel that your vote contributes it is stated very clearly that your vote each week is to save that housemate from eviction on the Friday night eviction. And that is all that your money goes to. You aren't voting for who is going to win £100,000 as much as you may like to believe that you are. As when the eviction is over, the public's votes are back to 0 and stand for nothing in relation to who is going to win the show. Big Brother has taken nobodies money off them under false pretenses.
But, you're contradicting yourself by even watching the show. If nobody voted, there would be no show.
By watching, you support people voting, as the format wouldn't work without public votes.
I know the producers are a crafty and unfair gang but, surely they have taken legal advice about this?
And only choosing three to go into the white room. Every HM shoud have had a chance. I guess they had to see which was the best way to make to play it to ensure golden boy got in there.
Obviously they are not unrelated, no-one nominated can win if people don't vote to save them, so voting to save must also carry the implication that they might win and as now they can not win the prize stated it must mean that they've contradicted the basis on which people voted.
In law though, you can't really put a case forward based on perception. it's factual. And since Channel 5 have never said that your vote will contribute to who is in the final and who could win the show and the £100,000 money that would be the deciding factor. Also, it's worth noting that the advertisement of the telephone vote will also state that terms and conditions apply and that by phoning and voting you are agreeing and accepting these terms and conditions-I'd highly recommend to everyone to obtain a copy of and read the voting terms and conditions before challenging Channel 5 for any legal wrong-doings.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the splitting the prize money is a good move and certainly don't agree with it on any level. But it is, unfortunately, at worst misleading to the public and that is all.
There was some manipulation ie changing from fewest noms all series to fewest noms by F&F. With the first option, Adam would have made it to the WR.
It's not conditional on BB's cartoon rules when it comes to real voting lines and real money.
If the viewers have been misled then there really is a case to answer for.
Because one of the regulations BB must uphold is that they make it clear to the voters what the deal is.
If they mislead the viewers where the exchange of money is concerned then 'BB rules' are simply meaningless.
They always change things abit, if it was all the same, it would always be THE SAME
Nobody has voted for the winner yet, they have voted to save for one week only
And as many others have already pointed out, they can change the rules whenever they like, that's why I never vote and won't hand over any of my money to them.
If my fav had had a fair chance of winning I'd sort of accept it.
Had only two of my fav's had a chance I'd have said it was totally unfair but probably not complained to anyone.
But the fact that I hate the two concerned is just that added incentive to do something about an injustice.
In each case the public would have been conned, but we tend to let people walk all over us & that's what companies know, but with this 'twist' they've conned us, laughed at us and spat on us & it's time they were brought down a peg or two.
Thanks, OP (and the others who've "liked"). Methinks Big Brother may have to sit on the naughty step.
By the way, if anyone wishes to copy and paste my complaint into part of their own objection email, feel free.
that isn't correct -
I agree it comes down to levels of proof and as such legal right is more easily proved if things are in writing. However, verbal contracts do exist and can be as binding as written contracts - especially when you have video and audio recordings of said agreements. Its not quite as simple as "its not in writing and its not signed therefore its not binding".