I reckon the eviction will be tomorrow because by that trailor I just saw, they're gonna show today's events on the 10pm show so they won't have much to show tomorrow night except an eviction

THAT is a genius post!

They cannot do what the hell they like. They cannot break health and safety rules for starters, even if it specifies in the contract that they can (the contract or clause would be null and void). They cannot temove thier liability for negligence. There are lots of things that they cannot do.

Back to the case in point - "Unfair evictions" - it is challengable in court. Success would depend on convincing the court that the clause that let them do it was an unfair contract term, which I think is pretty doubtful. Endemol may not want to take the risk in the legal lottery (they would have lots to lose, the ex-housemate nothing, especially if backed by a newspaper) that they might settle out of court with suitable confidentiallity clauses.

Of course there are certain things they can't do. They can't murder the housemates for a start!

I was only saying that within the bounds of reason they can make it up as they go.

Sorry, but there is absolutely zero chance any HM could challenge an eviction in court. None whatsoever.

The contract they all signed would have been very specifically worded such that the housemates have no recourse. In addition they are all subjected to psychological evaluations and are told in no uncertain terms that the experience may not be at all pleasant.

Even if a housemate came out of the experience mentally scarred I doubt they'd have any recourse against Endemol, as the court would be told that they had all this explained to them before they entered, then signed a contract to take part anyway. When you add in the fact that any HM can leave at any time they wish, the courts aren't going to have much sympathy.

If it's Victor who gets evicted by Big Brother tonight or tomorrow I reckon he's gonna refuse to leave. I can see fights with security guards and all sorts. He said as much the other day when they all found out someone was getting evicted because of Kitten.

If they do evict someone tonight, I'd think it's more likely that's it, they're gone. Because the whole premise of going to the secret room is that housemate can spy and get revenge of the housemates that have stabbed them in the back and evicted them. Well, it's gonna be Big Brother doing to evicting, so there's nobody to get back at.

That was my point - it doesn't matter how carefully they word it, it can still be an unfair contract term. Even more importantly, the court takes into account the relative strenghts of the bargaining positions when the contract is made. The housemates, entering the contract from a condition of weakness, actually have a better chance of getting such a clause declared unfair.

Not that I think it is likely (quite the opposite in fact).
Last edited by pmc : 03-06-2004 at 19:33

I believe what is going to happen tonight is that a housemate will be ‘evicted’, however tomorrow there is supposed to be a ‘false eviction’ where the person to be evicted will have to choose someone. They will not be evicted, instead they will be taken to a different part of the house and reintroduced later.

I believe that the person that is going to be evicted tonight will be the person to accompany the evictee tomorrow and the “picking someone to go with you” will be scrapped.

Think about it….fans are not going to turn up tomorrow because they know that the person is not really evicted but being taken somewhere else and crowd noise is to piped into the house.

Tonight is perfect for eviction because it is spontaneous and no crowds will have time to know to be there. Saying that, I’m sure there are a lot of people that will go down just on tonight’s speculations.

Just IMO

Bookmakers all over the country have been (and still are) taking bets on 'Fridays Fake Eviction'. Which to me says it all. If there was even a sliver of truth in the stories about Fridays fakey being scapped those bets would be down quicker than you can say "here kitty kitty."

If - as seems likely - someone other than 'kitten' is evicted, if may deprive many of the cathartic experience they desire and deserve, but it will mean untild suffering for the housegoat, for her reign of terror will be over. She'll be isolated and, far from following her sheepishly (as many of them have done, almost certainly against their better judgment), she will be openly challenged and, indeed, marginalized. It would be the worst possible punishment for this incoherent attention seeker. Being ignored is the one thing she, clearly, could not cope with.

Evicting some one at random creates a nightmare. What does it mean to win the premiership if Arsenal got thrown out because Liverpool fouled too many players. its a nonsense . They would be criticised for removing a public favourite or attacked for removing someone they didn't want to win. The contract doesn't say people can be evicted for other's actions and you can't writet a contract giving you to do the right to do anything without inviting the judge to laugh at it. The bookies and the punters who had put money on would also have a case - you can't take a horse out of the Grand National because another horse bites the starter either.

But surely the most important rule in BB is that "Big Brother may change the rules at any time"...?

Although entertaining in theory, I think a random eviction of an "innoncent" housemate would probably make me switch off in annoyance, especially if the contestant was somebody that I liked.

Of course if they had a plant in there they could evict him and Kitten would be in a very dramatic situation............

the reality is BB is a game show with a cash prize, as such BB has to adhere to regulations placed on it by itc/offcom. it cannot get away with picking a housemate to go as this will be seen as rigging the game.
drawing straws may be acceptable only if all 12 house mates are included (if bb leave out say kitten from the straws it will still be fixing as bb is exempting her from eviction, making the competion unfair)

i believe that straws or similar is the only way bb can get out of this situation as it favors no one. either that remove kitten herself.

Remove Kitten - oops they vote for Ahmed at the first opportunity - thats not good for endemol either. Half the population would think what racists and the other half would dislike him because he is one of the two people who might enjoy being unpleasant to the others.

You could banish Kitten to the bedsit and give her a task to remove the expulsion. If you are really nasty you identify the victim who will go if she doesn't comply - someone she likes, weak and cuddly preferably. Its a toned down version of "Sophie's choice"

For fear of having my head bitten off may I suggest that this being Big Brother the examples you've givem aren't that relevant...the rules of the game are entirely different.....It's all about raising advertising revenue and increasing takes on phone voting.....

I'm starting to see hands wedged in concrete blocks aka road building protestors. That and all the other HMs blocking yellow coated security guards getting to the swatting HM.

You would still have the same problems though. The winner would be the one that Endemol picked to stay. The evictee would lose their chance to win for a completely unique reason. You can't make Endemol and not the public the decider of who goes without completely altering the gameshow. Even if you randomize it you in effect create a random winner of BB5. Anyone who has put money on a bet on the person evicted would also lose their stake for a completely artificial reason. I wouldn't be happy if my money vanished because a random selection was made or Endemol intervened.

As someone posted above there are rules you have to live with even as you look for ways to boost ratings.

Absol;utely. BB has carte blanche, a contingency the witless 'kitten' failed to legislate for. This is unsurprising, as she really isn't very bright.

Its an interesting line to take though. if you wanted to do this you would keep kitten at least tilll 2,000000 voted to evict her and longer if she provides drama? when does the football start? That would be the week you needed drama? You wouldn' t evict anyone tonight (no audience) You might get the EVIL point over if you evicted someone else tomorrow (and paid them off) but you would get stuck straight into the charge that you had done something for ratings, had removed someone unfairly and randomized the winner. You wouldn't gain much either as you lose a HM to be EVIL once. You could return the evictee at some stage as a task treat but that would look even more like a fix.

The bookies and punters would still be after you too.

Removing Kitten herself because you can't run the show with her looks the soundest explanation perhaps but who knows.

What happens is a few of the other housemates will walk out in protest and the viewers will turn off by the hundreds of thousands...this is the biggest reality tv disgrace since uri and nick were allowed to bad mouth jade on back to reality...

One or two of you guys - with a couple of notable exceptions - should read up on the law of contract. The rules aren't the contract by the way, only part of it.

A contract is basically a promise by one side (person or organisation) to do something the other side wants, in exchange for something they want. BB want a show, the HMs want a fair chance of winning £100,000. Underlying all contracts is the principle of equity (fairness). People can give up some of their rights to be treated fairly but only if it's mentioned specifically in the contract. If BB arbitrarily and *unfairly* remove a HMs chance of winning in a way that isn't mentioned specifically, they can be sued for damages. Catch-all clauses (such as 'BB can do anything it wants') don't always work in this situation. One twelfth of £100K plus costs would be a good starting point for the claim.

Of course BB might not care - they might make loads of money from increased audiences and extra publicity. Handing say £20,000 to an unfairly evicted HM might be peanuts to BB and they'd probably settle out of court (as someone else mentioned), with a "gagging" clause as part of the deal. But the point is - if BB unfairly kill a HMs chance of winning BB, they *might* have to pay. Quite right, too.

If the innocent are evicted instead of the guilty it is a licence for anyone to cause chaos and not be punished.

In REAL life I have been working for my CURRENT employer nearly 20 years, public service, should know everything there is to know about employment, contracts etc etc etc, and I don't even have a contract to look at. I don't even have anything to see to know whether I or they are breaking any so callled rules or promises of employment... I know I know I know I should have, BUT THAT is real life D@ve, as many ppl with real lives will know. BB is NOT real life, it is simply a game show! :yawn:

Kitten should be the one to be evicted. Anyone else leaving is totally unfair. Producers would also be accused of playing favourites. I just cant see how this is going to work if it is a real eviction. The only person going in a real eviction would have to be Kitten.