I don't think it is irrelevant. I don't know you personally, but if it WAS a close female member of your family that he had been talking about, then I suspect you probably wouldn't be saying what you're saying now and wouldn't have wanted him to remain in the house. And if that was the case, then it shouldn't have made what he said acceptable and that he should have been removed. I know if I was in Deana's family's shoes, then I wouldn't have wanted him to remain in the house with her.
Well it wasn't acceptable and that's why he received a warning. Did it warrant being thrown out the house? Not for me....
It has nothing to do with your personal feelings had a member of your family been involved. It's about the house rules. Conor did nothing to warrant being thrown out of the house.
I also applaud him for giving us one of the most entertaining moments in the history of Big Brother. The white room was an extraordinary task and he played Luke like a fiddle. It was edge of your seat stuff when it came to the count down timer. A definite highlight in the history of of Big Brother. That was a major twist which none of us saw coming.
Emma and the audience member were talking about Conor and his comment immediately beforehand.
No, they weren't. Immediately before, they were talking about what BB had done about Conor. Here is what the transcript has the audience member saying immediately before: 'I mean, Big Brother hasn’t said “We’ll come back you, Conor,” or “You’re on a warning,” or anything like that. They’ve just said ‘Do you realise?’ and put him back in the House.'
Emma's reply is about that too: "The one thing I can say is that he wasn’t just in the Diary Room once – he did spend quite a lot of time in there with them and they did talk to him quite a lot." That's not talking about Conor's comments; it's talking about how BB's handled Conor.
In any case, the "it" is in something Deana supposedly said to BB. So how is it supposed get its referent from something an audience member said in a different place and at a different time? It's not like Deana heard the audience member and was answering what that person said.
Simple as. It doesn't really take a genius to work out that the statement, whether it was a direct quote or paraphrasing, was saying that BB had spoken to Deana about what he had said. You may not believe it, but I do.
If it's not a direct quote, then you shouldn't assume the actual words contained the "with it" you're interpreting.
In any case, how does "I’m absolutely fine with it, y’know – don’t worry” say BB had spoken to Deana about what Conor said?
And what's happened to your "strongly implied"? Why are we back to the claim that Emma said BB had told Deana?
In any case, Emma was not reading out a prepared statement that would have been gone over carefully to try to make sure it didn't say anything in a way that might be misunderstood. It does not make sense to micro-analyse her words to try to find some way to construe it as a lie.
Emma did not say that BB had told Deana what Conor had said. Emma said something that gave some people the impression that Deana had been told, but Emma did not actually say Deana had been told.
Yes, it does.
It does not, as I already explained in the part of my post you didn't quote.
You said: "Emma talked about Conor's comment in relation to what the audience member said and then added that they also spoke to Deana about it and that she was fine with it".
That has Emma saying three things: (1) "Emma talked about Conor's comment in relation to what the audience member said and then added (2) that they also spoke to Deana about it and (3) that she was fine with it".
There's no match for (1) in the transcript. What Emma says there in the transcript is about Conor being talked to in the DR. Re (2), Emma does not say they spoke to Deana about it, for any it. Instead she says "And they also took Deana in as well to make sure she was okay". For (3), Emma does say that Deana said “I’m absolutely fine with it, y’know – don’t worry”, but that has the problems discussed elsewhere in these posts and cannot get a referent for "it" from the words in the transcript in the way it does in what you said, because your (1) and (2) do not match the transcript well enough.
Yes - no punishment for the comment he made.
So what? The audience member's words about Conor not being punished do not make the "it" refer to what he said. That's not how "it" works. Normally, if, for example, I talk about someone not being punished, and someone replies that someone else is fine with it, "it" refers to the lack of punishment, not to whatever crime the unpunished person may have committed.
I very much doubt it was about something else.
It doesn't have to be about anything so specific, especially since we don't even know that Deana actually said "with it" or that Emma wasn't just using that form of words without careful thought.
It was still saying what she thought.
How do you know it's what she thought? She wouldn't have to believe it was a showmance before she could tell Luke S that it was, just as Luke wouldn't have to believe the things he'd said to Deana.
Please stop playing devil's advocate.
Stop accusing me of playing devil's advocate. I don't agree with you. I'm not pretending not to agree.
You actually believe that, you think Conor was threatening to rape Deana?
Please tell me you are joking.
If there was even the slightest hint that Conor was threatening to rape someone ON NATIONAL TELEVISION then he would have been arrested.
It was immature and foul mouthed but in no way was he threatening to rape Deana. Come on now, get a grip. This is getting ridiculous. A nothing incident has suddenly turned into a threat of rape.
I included the line "whether it was serious or not", which doesn't say that I thought he was intending to do it. He said what he did, but I didn't say that meant he was definitely going to do it. In my eyes, saying it in the first place should have been a good enough reason to get him removed.
There was a post back in 2012 that quoted a bunch of OFCOM rules that they thought might have been breached, but it didn't include that one; and "basically says" sounds like it's a (possibly questionable) interpretation of a rule rather than what the rule actually says.
I've certainly never seen in claimed in any other case that BB had an official obligation to tell a HM anything that had been said behind their back.
You are quite correct it is a possibly questionable interpretation. All rules are questionable interpretations aren't they, isn't that what keeps solicitors in work. Unless you mean it wasn't verbatum in which case i would of used quotes if it were meant to be.
7.3 Where a person is invited to make a contribution to a programme (except when the subject matter is trivial or their participation minor) they should normally, at an appropriate stage:
be made aware of any significant changes to the programme as it develops which might reasonably affect their original consent to participate, and which might cause material unfairness;
Bare in mind that it is Conor's change in attitude from obnoxious man to menacing obnoxious man as evidenced by his rant which i am interpreting as a significant change to the programme.
Perhaps an attitude change doesn't constitute a "change in the programme" to some interpretations, but i see no reason why it shouldn't be considered given the wording used. Specifically in light of a threat of sexual violence because at that point the programme had indeed changed imo. No more was it about people co-habiting or anything else that might of been considered consent in the form of a contract.
I'd like to think BB was duty bound to at least give Deana a heads up as to the severity of Conor's attitude change toward her, and i think the rule could be reasonably interpreted to that end.
I don't suppose we know what they did tell her but i was left with the impression that she had been told about Conor's rant, perhaps not in full detail but at least that he had said some really nasty things about her. When Emma said she'd been told about IT I figure the only "It" that had been defined previously was Conors rant, and so was rest assured she'd been told. As of now, i still don't see what the other "It" (that she was fine with) could of been.
You are quite correct it is a possibly questionable interpretation. All rules are questionable interpretations aren't they, isn't that what keeps solicitors in work. Unless you mean it wasn't verbatum in which case i would of used quotes if it were meant to be.
Bare in mind that it is Conor's change in attitude from obnoxious man to menacing obnoxious man as evidenced by his rant which i am interpreting as a significant change to the programme.
Perhaps an attitude change doesn't constitute a "change in the programme" to some interpretations, but i see no reason why it shouldn't be considered given the wording used. Specifically in light of a threat of sexual violence because at that point the programme had indeed changed imo. No more was it about people co-habiting or anything else that might of been considered consent in the form of a contract.
I'd like to think BB was duty bound to at least give Deana a heads up as to the severity of Conor's attitude change toward her, and i think the rule could be reasonably interpreted to that end.
I don't suppose we know what they did tell her but i was left with the impression that she had been told about Conor's rant, perhaps not in full detail but at least that he had said some really nasty things about her. When Emma said she'd been told about IT I figure the only "It" that had been defined previously was Conors rant, and so was rest assured she'd been told. As of now, i still don't see what the other "It" (that she was fine with) could of been.
I think that is an admirable answer / explanation, on most points, and certainly re the wording of the rule (your paraphrase is quite close), and I don't think every interpretation is necessarily questionable, even if it's not verbatim; however (1) I don't think the rule means Deana should have been told what Conor said (more on that below), and (2) the "it" did not occur in Emma saying Deana had been told about "it": there was no "told" or any similar alternative in what Emma said. Nonetheless, I think that many people had indeed been "left with the impression that she had been told about Conor's rant, perhaps not in full detail but at least that he had said some really nasty things about her." (Emphasis added.) And perhaps it's even true that she was so told. I'm not even sure Deana's claims in the relevant interview are inconsistent with her having been told, not in full detail, but that he'd said nasty things.
Not only that, I think one of the reasons people thought Deana had been told what Conor said is that Conor's rant was so extreme that other things done / said against Dean around that time (re the eating task) seemed so insignificant by comparison that it didn't seem to make sense for BB to check whether Deana was OK about anything else.
Now for the "more below" re (1) above.
I don't think the rule was meant to apply to behind-backs comments in a show like BB, and Ofcom did not (so far as I know) say anything about this rule in their judgement that C5/BB violated the broadcasting code in the way they handled Conor and his remarks.
If we take rule literally (or semi-literally, whatever that mans), or in the way you seem to be suggesting, then HMs would have be told about what's said behind their backs, and about twists, especially ones that affect things like the prize money. I don't think the rule's ever been interpreted that way by Ofcom, re a show like BB.
Comments
Well it wasn't acceptable and that's why he received a warning. Did it warrant being thrown out the house? Not for me....
It has nothing to do with your personal feelings had a member of your family been involved. It's about the house rules. Conor did nothing to warrant being thrown out of the house.
I also applaud him for giving us one of the most entertaining moments in the history of Big Brother. The white room was an extraordinary task and he played Luke like a fiddle. It was edge of your seat stuff when it came to the count down timer. A definite highlight in the history of of Big Brother. That was a major twist which none of us saw coming.
No, they weren't. Immediately before, they were talking about what BB had done about Conor. Here is what the transcript has the audience member saying immediately before: 'I mean, Big Brother hasn’t said “We’ll come back you, Conor,” or “You’re on a warning,” or anything like that. They’ve just said ‘Do you realise?’ and put him back in the House.'
Emma's reply is about that too: "The one thing I can say is that he wasn’t just in the Diary Room once – he did spend quite a lot of time in there with them and they did talk to him quite a lot." That's not talking about Conor's comments; it's talking about how BB's handled Conor.
In any case, the "it" is in something Deana supposedly said to BB. So how is it supposed get its referent from something an audience member said in a different place and at a different time? It's not like Deana heard the audience member and was answering what that person said.
If it's not a direct quote, then you shouldn't assume the actual words contained the "with it" you're interpreting.
In any case, how does "I’m absolutely fine with it, y’know – don’t worry” say BB had spoken to Deana about what Conor said?
And what's happened to your "strongly implied"? Why are we back to the claim that Emma said BB had told Deana?
In any case, Emma was not reading out a prepared statement that would have been gone over carefully to try to make sure it didn't say anything in a way that might be misunderstood. It does not make sense to micro-analyse her words to try to find some way to construe it as a lie.
Emma did not say that BB had told Deana what Conor had said. Emma said something that gave some people the impression that Deana had been told, but Emma did not actually say Deana had been told.
It does not, as I already explained in the part of my post you didn't quote.
You said: "Emma talked about Conor's comment in relation to what the audience member said and then added that they also spoke to Deana about it and that she was fine with it".
That has Emma saying three things: (1) "Emma talked about Conor's comment in relation to what the audience member said and then added (2) that they also spoke to Deana about it and (3) that she was fine with it".
There's no match for (1) in the transcript. What Emma says there in the transcript is about Conor being talked to in the DR. Re (2), Emma does not say they spoke to Deana about it, for any it. Instead she says "And they also took Deana in as well to make sure she was okay". For (3), Emma does say that Deana said “I’m absolutely fine with it, y’know – don’t worry”, but that has the problems discussed elsewhere in these posts and cannot get a referent for "it" from the words in the transcript in the way it does in what you said, because your (1) and (2) do not match the transcript well enough.
So what? The audience member's words about Conor not being punished do not make the "it" refer to what he said. That's not how "it" works. Normally, if, for example, I talk about someone not being punished, and someone replies that someone else is fine with it, "it" refers to the lack of punishment, not to whatever crime the unpunished person may have committed.
It doesn't have to be about anything so specific, especially since we don't even know that Deana actually said "with it" or that Emma wasn't just using that form of words without careful thought.
How do you know it's what she thought? She wouldn't have to believe it was a showmance before she could tell Luke S that it was, just as Luke wouldn't have to believe the things he'd said to Deana.
Stop accusing me of playing devil's advocate. I don't agree with you. I'm not pretending not to agree.
I included the line "whether it was serious or not", which doesn't say that I thought he was intending to do it. He said what he did, but I didn't say that meant he was definitely going to do it. In my eyes, saying it in the first place should have been a good enough reason to get him removed.
You are quite correct it is a possibly questionable interpretation. All rules are questionable interpretations aren't they, isn't that what keeps solicitors in work. Unless you mean it wasn't verbatum in which case i would of used quotes if it were meant to be.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/fairness/
Bare in mind that it is Conor's change in attitude from obnoxious man to menacing obnoxious man as evidenced by his rant which i am interpreting as a significant change to the programme.
Perhaps an attitude change doesn't constitute a "change in the programme" to some interpretations, but i see no reason why it shouldn't be considered given the wording used. Specifically in light of a threat of sexual violence because at that point the programme had indeed changed imo. No more was it about people co-habiting or anything else that might of been considered consent in the form of a contract.
I'd like to think BB was duty bound to at least give Deana a heads up as to the severity of Conor's attitude change toward her, and i think the rule could be reasonably interpreted to that end.
I don't suppose we know what they did tell her but i was left with the impression that she had been told about Conor's rant, perhaps not in full detail but at least that he had said some really nasty things about her. When Emma said she'd been told about IT I figure the only "It" that had been defined previously was Conors rant, and so was rest assured she'd been told. As of now, i still don't see what the other "It" (that she was fine with) could of been.
I like Deana but what happens in the house stays in the house, live happy and in peace.
I think the reason Deana lost is because it would set a dangerous precedent for loads of ex BB housemates looking to cash in..
I think that is an admirable answer / explanation, on most points, and certainly re the wording of the rule (your paraphrase is quite close), and I don't think every interpretation is necessarily questionable, even if it's not verbatim; however (1) I don't think the rule means Deana should have been told what Conor said (more on that below), and (2) the "it" did not occur in Emma saying Deana had been told about "it": there was no "told" or any similar alternative in what Emma said. Nonetheless, I think that many people had indeed been "left with the impression that she had been told about Conor's rant, perhaps not in full detail but at least that he had said some really nasty things about her." (Emphasis added.) And perhaps it's even true that she was so told. I'm not even sure Deana's claims in the relevant interview are inconsistent with her having been told, not in full detail, but that he'd said nasty things.
Not only that, I think one of the reasons people thought Deana had been told what Conor said is that Conor's rant was so extreme that other things done / said against Dean around that time (re the eating task) seemed so insignificant by comparison that it didn't seem to make sense for BB to check whether Deana was OK about anything else.
Now for the "more below" re (1) above.
I don't think the rule was meant to apply to behind-backs comments in a show like BB, and Ofcom did not (so far as I know) say anything about this rule in their judgement that C5/BB violated the broadcasting code in the way they handled Conor and his remarks.
If we take rule literally (or semi-literally, whatever that mans), or in the way you seem to be suggesting, then HMs would have be told about what's said behind their backs, and about twists, especially ones that affect things like the prize money. I don't think the rule's ever been interpreted that way by Ofcom, re a show like BB.