STOP COMPLAINING! - The twist ISNT illegal
[Deleted User]
Posts: 275
Forum Member
✭
So you spent 'good money' voting for a housemate to be evicted.... And now the producers are giving the public the chance to vote that same housemate back in?
You feel aggrieved, ripped off, devastated, and you want to complain because you think what the BB producers are doing is illegal?
STOP YOUR WHINGING!
When you voted 'X' housemate out, there was not a clause that promised that for your money, the housemate would not return ever!
When you vote someone out, all you ever get is the promise that the evicted will be out THAT particular week.
As fans of BB we know there will be twist, some which we love, some which we hate. But for everybody writing emails to Ofcom. You have to sort yourselves out!
Twists like it or not, are all part of BB. And this is one of the best of them! (i just wish they would put all 4 housemates back in!)
You feel aggrieved, ripped off, devastated, and you want to complain because you think what the BB producers are doing is illegal?
STOP YOUR WHINGING!
When you voted 'X' housemate out, there was not a clause that promised that for your money, the housemate would not return ever!
When you vote someone out, all you ever get is the promise that the evicted will be out THAT particular week.
As fans of BB we know there will be twist, some which we love, some which we hate. But for everybody writing emails to Ofcom. You have to sort yourselves out!
Twists like it or not, are all part of BB. And this is one of the best of them! (i just wish they would put all 4 housemates back in!)
0
Comments
It's a game show !!!!!
Plus it smacks of desperation.
Believe it or not, I'm a qualified barrister and I think you are wrong.
I'd say that voting to evict a candidate creates a contract between the people phoning and Endemol/ Channel 4. They pay for the phone call; Endemol evict the HM with the highest vote. "Evict," construed in context, means that the candidate will not be coming back. That's what the voters understand it to mean and that's what an officious bystander would understand it to mean.
In my opinion, allowing an evicted HM to win the £100,000 constitutes a breach of contract. I imagine Ch4/ Endemol are banking on nobody caring enough to litigate the point.
Any chance of a class action?
think the last line says it all..
I personally think it would be fine if they weren't able to win the prize money, as it is it stinks but let's just make sure we vote IN the housemates who will stir things up a bit and make it more lively.
[I'd love to see the look on Richard's face if Grace went back in]
(PS. I'm not bothered about the legal thing. I can't even remember who I voted for or when. It's just a crap twist.)
Maybe, but only a court can decide that for sure and with a small amount involved anyone could issue a small claim, which would if nothing else be very funny to see how BB reacted.
but they make money out of them and this year all the votes have been overturned on a marketing whim.
How anyone can say "oh, that doesn't matter" is beyond me.
I suppose if someone had spent £25,000 trying to get Nikki evicted, for example, they might get past the frivolous action hurdle. But I think C4/Endemol would argue that when you phone up, you know there is no guarantee that your candidate will be evicted. Your consideration is the enjoyment of actually ringing up, being part of a media experience, venting your angst and frustration, and having Davina give you a personal recorded message.
You are saying there is no ‘clause’ I say there is. It is written on their website in at least two separate places:
One says, and I quote:
Once a housemate leaves they forfeit any claim to the prize money.
The other says:
The housemate that receives most public votes leaves the House and is out of the competition.
Either of these constitute a contract with the paying voter. A contract which has been broken with respect to 10 houemates. The money from all of those votes was taken on false pretences.
FYI- There doesn’t have to be a written clause, the contract is verbal, which is legally binding but the above show it IS in writing anyway.
On your other point [that the person will only be evicted that week] I quote the second section of the BB site again “The housemate that receives most public votes leaves the House and is out of the competition.”
And, as you were so condescending as to say ‘STOP YOUR WHINGING!’ I am going to be ungracious too and say your attitude is rude and unpleasant as well as ignorant, boorish and uninformed.
gwiddecombe, from what I understand, the person or people who take this to court, if they won, would win all the money BB have taken on the votes for all the 10 HMs who are now possibly going back in. Imagine how much that could be. Even if they only got the money for the 4 HM who actually do return it goes into the millions. Worth dong? Oh yes!
sure they would nave not wasted their money
Cheats cheats cheats scam scam scam sham sham sham fix fix fix
end of
That's a very good point, and I would just love to see Endemol's lawyers argue that in court!
Technically, they are the eviction rules. So when voting for a housemate to be evicted, a person is spending money to remove them from the competition and "forfeit" their right to the prize money. This was always the reason why I thought Jon was not allowed to win. As a returning housemate present in the house but not allowed to be entered into any public votes, he was still effectively out of the competition and could not win the prize money. The public had "forfeited" his right to the cash. It just meant he was hanging around the house as a guest.
I think someone would have a case if those express terms are stated when it comes to the phone votes. I dunno whether it would get anywhere (Endemol will hire ever-so-expensive lawyers that will be able to come up with ever-so-irritating loopholes that will get them off the hook) but it certainly looks from the evidence that we HAVE available to us that there's a possible action in there from someone who voted, for fraud or breach of contract. False advertising might also be an issue.
However, I suppose you'd also have to consult the acts of parliament when it comes to competition rules and fairness and whatnot. I'm sure there are certain regulations that will get Endemol off the hook :rolleyes:
Even if it's NOT illegal, it's certainly duplicitous.
i have to admit, having seen the twist in action, I have changed my mind on this.
Any court would look at what people's understanding was, and their intention when they decided to pay good money to make the premium rate voting call. I am in no doubt that their intention was to try to ensure that the person they voted for played no further part in the competition and could not win the prize.
Endemol's statement that "profits" from the new vote would go to charity implicitly recognises the fact that there is an issue.
But I go with my feelings of feeling cheated and conned.
I therefore can exercise my right (and there's enough of us to make this twist actually fail) to not vote any of those losers back in.
I voted to get them out because I don't like them. I don't want them back in so therefore I REFUSE to vote.
I can't stop who goes in but I know it won't be my choice. I can still vote to win by my personal choice - and AVOID voting for the person who comes back in.
Shows how desperate they are.