OK, I've read this whole debate and what we have now are dishonest media moguls, corrupt TV bosses at C5, dishonest producers and directors at BB, and corrupt independent verifiers, all working hard to make sure Helen would win, and deciding this before the series began! And still nobody has given a convincing explanation as to why! "C5 and Endemol have their reasons" isn't an explanation. "To get publicity" isn't exactly convincing. They could have stirred up controversy in any number of other ways. If they were determined that Helen would win, right from the outset, why did they allow her to become a hate figure and take a chance that she might not win after all? They could easily have edited out her bad bits. After all, each HM only gets about 3 minutes a day, and nobody would have noticed if she only got 2 minutes on certain days. In a magazine interview this week, she says she spent a lot of time comforting and reassuring other HMs who were feeling down (and they could confirm or deny this) but none of that was shown. So did she really get a good edit?
I have noticed some disturbing tendencies in this debate, such as making up "facts" then running with them, e.g. the complete fiction that Richard Desmond runs a talent agency, and that the independent verifiers were his accountants. And people are choosing to deny simple facts about the voting in the finals of TV game show series, be it BB, The X Factor or whatever. The technology is designed to cope with mass voting on finals night, because there always IS mass voting on finals night. There is ALWAYS a huge amount of last-minute voting. That's when I vote, when I know my vote will be most effective.
The whole issue of Ashleigh's vote "closing early" would be easier to take seriously if we knew that Helen's vote stayed open longer. But we don't know that. In fact, the independent verifiers - who we now know actually ARE independent - ensured that the voting ended at exactly the same time. That's one of the most basic parts of their job.
Just like Baroness Butler-Sloss was independent. Time to wake up. Helens story has mileage. Watch out for the Helen," My story" docs nevermind the tabloids. >:(
Baroness Butler-Sloss WAS independent. It wasn't because she was involved in previous events that she was appointed, OR that she stood down. It was because there was a chance that she would be PERCEIVED by some people as being tainted by her family connection - nothing more than that.
These facts are not secret, and you should acquaint yourself with them before smearing a highly respected woman, whose conduct in public office has been beyond reproach.
OK, I've read this whole debate and what we have now are dishonest media moguls, corrupt TV bosses at C5, dishonest producers and directors at BB, and corrupt independent verifiers, all working hard to make sure Helen would win, and deciding this before the series began! And still nobody has given a convincing explanation as to why! "C5 and Endemol have their reasons" isn't an explanation. "To get publicity" isn't exactly convincing. They could have stirred up controversy in any number of other ways. If they were determined that Helen would win, right from the outset, why did they allow her to become a hate figure and take a chance that she might not win after all? They could easily have edited out her bad bits. After all, each HM only gets about 3 minutes a day, and nobody would have noticed if she only got 2 minutes on certain days. In a magazine interview this week, she says she spent a lot of time comforting and reassuring other HMs who were feeling down (and they could confirm or deny this) but none of that was shown. So did she really get a good edit?
I have noticed some disturbing tendencies in this debate, such as making up "facts" then running with them, e.g. the complete fiction that Richard Desmond runs a talent agency, and that the independent verifiers were his accountants. And people are choosing to deny simple facts about the voting in the finals of TV game show series, be it BB, The X Factor or whatever. The technology is designed to cope with mass voting on finals night, because there always IS mass voting on finals night. There is ALWAYS a huge amount of last-minute voting. That's when I vote, when I know my vote will be most effective.
The whole issue of Ashleigh's vote "closing early" would be easier to take seriously if we knew that Helen's vote stayed open longer. But we don't know that. In fact, the independent verifiers - who we now know actually ARE independent - ensured that the voting ended at exactly the same time. That's one of the most basic parts of their job.
Just do what I do, ignore all the unsubstantial "facts" and look at the actual facts, even then I can still see something iffy going on.
The thing is, if BB can't even get thier statement right, it does make me wonder if we should be taking what they're saying as gospel. The fact that they had to alter two of thier statments says it all.
The whole thing looks very thrown together.
I'm not one to cry fix and I'm not going to say Ashleigh bagged more votes but there is something very fishy about all this.
And that's worth risking the repuatation, integrity of the show and a massive fine for is it?
They don't need publicity - it's run for 15 series without previous winners going out promoting for them.
I'm not sure you can say integrity and reputation in the same breath as BB
The viewing figures have been pretty shocking for the last few years. I'm sure as far as the producers are concerned all publicity is good and is keeping the show afloat.
I'm not sure you can say integrity and reputation in the same breath as BB
The viewing figures have been pretty shocking for the last few years. I'm sure as far as the producers are concerned all publicity is good and is keeping the show afloat.
I agree that integrity probably isn't the first thing that springs to anyones mind when they think of BB.:D
But the fact remains that the BB voting is overseen by Electoral Reform Services and they are a well respected company who've been conducting ballots and elections for over 100 years. They oversee Parliamentary and Council elections and have been used as consultants by the United Nations. Do people really believe they'd risk a worldwide reputation for high standards just to help fix it for Helen Wood to win BB?
The phone vote is just about the only thing on BB that IS genuine IMO.
The thing is, if BB can't even get thier statement right, it does make me wonder if we should be taking what they're saying as gospel. The fact that they had to alter two of thier statments says it all.
The whole thing looks very thrown together.
I'm not one to cry fix and I'm not going to say Ashleigh bagged more votes but there is something very fishy about all this.
I think the generous/charitable explanation of the initial statement saying that Pauline didn't know what she was awarding is that someone got confused with the previous night (where Pauline didn't know in advance that the reward for Mark would be £5,000 or that the punishment for Matthew would be 24 hours in the cage) and didn't bother to check facts.
If it was intended as a deliberate lie it was a pretty feeble one since it could be easily disproved by linking to the Youtube of Pauline being told about the pass to the final.
But the fact remains that the BB voting is overseen by Electoral Reform Services and they are a well respected company who've been conducting ballots and elections for over 100 years. They oversee Parliamentary and Council elections and have been used as consultants by the United Nations. Do people really believe they'd risk a worldwide reputation for high standards just to help fix it for Helen Wood to win BB?
My take on how Helen beat Ashleigh by over 4k vote when Ashleigh was ahead by over 7K votes in the final hour is betting syndicates and pro gamblers .
I don't know the gambling odds for the two women in the final hour but we know that previous to that Ashleigh was odds on fav to win by a big margin and the odds for Helen were pretty good for a gambler .
So if you and your friends had Helen on redial for the final hour so could still have a nice profit with the favourable odds which Helen had .
Just like Baroness Butler-Sloss was independent. Time to wake up. Helens story has mileage. Watch out for the Helen," My story" docs nevermind the tabloids. >:(
What the devil are you talking about. There is not the slightest similarity between the two. In any case the organisation they use to verify the votes is licensed and regulated, should it happen to transgress it would be out of business as no one would ever trust them again. Do get some perspective. Besides Helens story will not be worth more than any other winners story. Dear oh dear, whatever next. Oh wait a minute I saw a pink elephant fly past and what's that a fairy1
No way do I buy the Helen auditioned like everyone else. Most of the cast were probably recruits.
To be honest people should be hoping it was a fix, otherwise it's a telling sign that viewers would vote for her, by which I mean it suggests the viewers are as common and down in the gutter as Helen herself.
No way do I buy the Helen auditioned like everyone else. Most of the cast were probably recruits.
I even missed that bit out as well as she was supposed to go on CBB in 2011 according to a post on here somewhere from her Twitter so that's 3 blackholes in the statement already !
Chris did say 'he was asked to go on the show' whether he meant asked after auditioning or just asked outright though I don't know.
Extrapolating from the figures given in the amendment to the statement, figures relating to the votes cast in the 8 minutes between Christopher leaving and the lines being closed for the last time, in order for Helen to have gathered 12,518 votes more than Ashleigh between 8.54 pm and the lines closing, with votes being cast thoroughout the entirety of the period in the same proportion as the are known to have been cast in the final 8 minutes of the lines being open, then Helen would have had to have received 172,431 votes and Ashleigh 159,913 votes between 8,54 pm and the lines closing for the final time at 10.03 pm. Any less than this and Helen would have received an amount of votes between 8.54 pm and Christopher leaving that was for some reason disproportionately larger than the amount of votes she is known to received in the last 8 minutes.
Extrapolating from the figures given in the amendment to the statement, figures relating to the votes cast in the 8 minutes between Christopher leaving and the lines being closed for the last time, in order for Helen to have gathered 12,518 votes more than Ashleigh between 8.54 pm and the lines closing, with votes being cast thoroughout the entirety of the period in the same proportion as the are known to have been cast in the final 8 minutes of the lines being open, then Helen would have had to have received 172,431 votes and Ashleigh 159,913 votes between 8,54 pm and the lines closing for the final time at 10.03 pm. Any less than this and Helen would have received an amount of votes between 8.54 pm and Christopher leaving that was for some reason disproportionately larger than the amount of votes she is known to received in the last 8 minutes.
Have you just edited this? I was pondering whether you meant disproportionately larger or smaller, when hey presto!
I'm still trying to figure out what your conclusion from all this is, and whether it is a circular argument.
OK, I've read this whole debate and what we have now are dishonest media moguls, corrupt TV bosses at C5, dishonest producers and directors at BB, and corrupt independent verifiers, all working hard to make sure Helen would win, and deciding this before the series began! And still nobody has given a convincing explanation as to why! "C5 and Endemol have their reasons" isn't an explanation. "To get publicity" isn't exactly convincing. They could have stirred up controversy in any number of other ways. If they were determined that Helen would win, right from the outset, why did they allow her to become a hate figure and take a chance that she might not win after all? They could easily have edited out her bad bits. After all, each HM only gets about 3 minutes a day, and nobody would have noticed if she only got 2 minutes on certain days. In a magazine interview this week, she says she spent a lot of time comforting and reassuring other HMs who were feeling down (and they could confirm or deny this) but none of that was shown. So did she really get a good edit?
I have noticed some disturbing tendencies in this debate, such as making up "facts" then running with them, e.g. the complete fiction that Richard Desmond runs a talent agency, and that the independent verifiers were his accountants. And people are choosing to deny simple facts about the voting in the finals of TV game show series, be it BB, The X Factor or whatever. The technology is designed to cope with mass voting on finals night, because there always IS mass voting on finals night. There is ALWAYS a huge amount of last-minute voting. That's when I vote, when I know my vote will be most effective.
The whole issue of Ashleigh's vote "closing early" would be easier to take seriously if we knew that Helen's vote stayed open longer. But we don't know that. In fact, the independent verifiers - who we now know actually ARE independent - ensured that the voting ended at exactly the same time. That's one of the most basic parts of their job.
It is falling on deaf ears I'm afraid they are just not listening, or indeed thinking about the logic of their theories.
No. Did BB/C5 say that their phones are barred from doing any voting? I really don't think Helen won, nor Ulrika, nor Michael Barrymore coming second in the celeb series that he appeared in.
Have you just edited this? I was pondering whether you meant disproportionately larger or smaller, when hey presto!
I'm still trying to figure out what your conclusion from all this is, and whether it is a circular argument.
it is only significant if the votes actually cast were of a smaller number than those that i extrapolated ,it has been suggested that this is the case, but there is no reason for thinking that these suggestions are necessarily reliable.
Chris did say 'he was asked to go on the show' whether he meant asked after auditioning or just asked outright though I don't know.
In his Couch Potatoes interview last week he said it was his idea to apply and audition. I guess his comment in his last-night speech referred to when he was informed he'd got a place in the house.
Comments
I have noticed some disturbing tendencies in this debate, such as making up "facts" then running with them, e.g. the complete fiction that Richard Desmond runs a talent agency, and that the independent verifiers were his accountants. And people are choosing to deny simple facts about the voting in the finals of TV game show series, be it BB, The X Factor or whatever. The technology is designed to cope with mass voting on finals night, because there always IS mass voting on finals night. There is ALWAYS a huge amount of last-minute voting. That's when I vote, when I know my vote will be most effective.
The whole issue of Ashleigh's vote "closing early" would be easier to take seriously if we knew that Helen's vote stayed open longer. But we don't know that. In fact, the independent verifiers - who we now know actually ARE independent - ensured that the voting ended at exactly the same time. That's one of the most basic parts of their job.
Baroness Butler-Sloss WAS independent. It wasn't because she was involved in previous events that she was appointed, OR that she stood down. It was because there was a chance that she would be PERCEIVED by some people as being tainted by her family connection - nothing more than that.
These facts are not secret, and you should acquaint yourself with them before smearing a highly respected woman, whose conduct in public office has been beyond reproach.
Just do what I do, ignore all the unsubstantial "facts" and look at the actual facts, even then I can still see something iffy going on.
The whole thing looks very thrown together.
I'm not one to cry fix and I'm not going to say Ashleigh bagged more votes but there is something very fishy about all this.
And that's worth risking the repuatation, integrity of the show and a massive fine for is it?
They don't need publicity - it's run for 15 series without previous winners going out promoting for them.
I'm not sure you can say integrity and reputation in the same breath as BB
The viewing figures have been pretty shocking for the last few years. I'm sure as far as the producers are concerned all publicity is good and is keeping the show afloat.
I agree that integrity probably isn't the first thing that springs to anyones mind when they think of BB.:D
But the fact remains that the BB voting is overseen by Electoral Reform Services and they are a well respected company who've been conducting ballots and elections for over 100 years. They oversee Parliamentary and Council elections and have been used as consultants by the United Nations. Do people really believe they'd risk a worldwide reputation for high standards just to help fix it for Helen Wood to win BB?
The phone vote is just about the only thing on BB that IS genuine IMO.
I think the generous/charitable explanation of the initial statement saying that Pauline didn't know what she was awarding is that someone got confused with the previous night (where Pauline didn't know in advance that the reward for Mark would be £5,000 or that the punishment for Matthew would be 24 hours in the cage) and didn't bother to check facts.
If it was intended as a deliberate lie it was a pretty feeble one since it could be easily disproved by linking to the Youtube of Pauline being told about the pass to the final.
Quite.
I don't know the gambling odds for the two women in the final hour but we know that previous to that Ashleigh was odds on fav to win by a big margin and the odds for Helen were pretty good for a gambler .
So if you and your friends had Helen on redial for the final hour so could still have a nice profit with the favourable odds which Helen had .
They didn't need to they had Steven
Isn't this all getting rather silly now?;-)
Now?
What the devil are you talking about. There is not the slightest similarity between the two. In any case the organisation they use to verify the votes is licensed and regulated, should it happen to transgress it would be out of business as no one would ever trust them again. Do get some perspective. Besides Helens story will not be worth more than any other winners story. Dear oh dear, whatever next. Oh wait a minute I saw a pink elephant fly past and what's that a fairy1
No way on this planet did Helen receive around 70,000 votes in the final hour with lines opening and closing etc and other HMs being voted for.
Along with the Pauline rubbish, proves it is all bull !
To be honest people should be hoping it was a fix, otherwise it's a telling sign that viewers would vote for her, by which I mean it suggests the viewers are as common and down in the gutter as Helen herself.
I even missed that bit out as well as she was supposed to go on CBB in 2011 according to a post on here somewhere from her Twitter so that's 3 blackholes in the statement already !
Chris did say 'he was asked to go on the show' whether he meant asked after auditioning or just asked outright though I don't know.
Have you just edited this? I was pondering whether you meant disproportionately larger or smaller, when hey presto!
I'm still trying to figure out what your conclusion from all this is, and whether it is a circular argument.
It is falling on deaf ears I'm afraid they are just not listening, or indeed thinking about the logic of their theories.
No. Did BB/C5 say that their phones are barred from doing any voting? I really don't think Helen won, nor Ulrika, nor Michael Barrymore coming second in the celeb series that he appeared in.
it is only significant if the votes actually cast were of a smaller number than those that i extrapolated ,it has been suggested that this is the case, but there is no reason for thinking that these suggestions are necessarily reliable.