Source:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

There's also another quote from a watchdog which is _REALLY_ scavying of last nights events, but I can't find the URL so I won't paste the quotes.

The media heat is starting...

But it's a reality show, what happened was real (albeit in a unique enviroment).

How is it any different to any of the reality Police shows, that show violence, swearing and threatening behaviour?

i'm more offended by that wife swapping pervy programme they put on after chann4 BB.
it's more eye watering than eye opener!

All of the situations on Big Brother are created and manipulated by the producers. They are in control, they are responsible.

Because Channel 4 engineered the situation with the knowledge that this would incite a huge argument. Police shows merely document it.

To a point, I agree.

However, C4 didn't make Marco dance in front of Jason, or make Emma and Victor go at it....ulitmately, it was down to themselves.

They were chosen for their volatility and antithesis. They were then wound up by quite deliberate pshychological manipulation. The Producers caused the cicumstances, and knew the consequences. They are mainly, if not entirely to blame.

But why has it taken 5 series for anything to be said then?
Surely every BB series is engineered the same.

Listen to yourselves. Making excuses for them.

THEY ARE ALL ADULTS, THEY ARE ALL PRATS.

Everything last night was down to them , if they were civilised they wouldnt have started fighting.

Its not the production teams fault if people wanna behave like Animals.

Not like this. BB5 was from the outset designed primarily to create conflict. The housemates were then chosen in order to form a group permanantly in conflict with itself. It was a situation that has proved to be too volatile.

But animals are kept in zoos which are designed to create an atmosphere of tranquility. Certainly a more sensible group of people - BB4? - would never have done this, but they were chosen as being the ideal housemates.

I think it's the best TV in years, if thirty or so people complain then they shouldn't have the right to offend the rest of us six million by being spoilsports and wet dullards.

Where would you draw the line? What would you not like to see?

But the animals aren't grass snakes with king cobras and... wait, no, sounding like Victor.

Something worth noting with the 'wading' in of Ofcom is that a similar situation to this arised in "The Experiment" that run on the BBC in 2001, if I remember correctly, that basically was a televisied version of the Stanford Prison Study.

Whether the situation is manufactured, or not, the behaviour of the people is almost impossible to control and force - there have been other programs that include the portrayal of physical violence in 'real life' in manufactured conditions and no sanctions were taken against them.

The context of how this goes from here is important, particularly seeing the current activity of the 'bonding' and 'making up' between the housemates.

In context, I don't really think the complaints would be upheld, of course, I may be wrong as I'm not compliant rules saavy, but I'd imagine that it complied where it needed to, and the housemates are being carefully looked after (shocking, eh?) by the production team.

I think the answer is for people to email Ofcom and tell them to lay off.

It was Endemol's explicit intention to create conflict - they boasted about how evil BB was going to be. Conflict is what happened and I don't think it's a coincidence.

I wonder what they would think of a quarter of a million complaints telling them that... or would their infrastructure even support that many? Not insulting it, honest.

I think there's a difference between conflict in their context, as in arguments, and conflict in terms of what happened last night.

That was much further than they anticipated, and that is purely the fault of the housemates, as it looked like the effects of a fight in a dodgy pub in the middle of town... further, Endemol's response does show that they stopped it as quickly as they could without causing further harm or inciting further violence.

Is it Endemol's complete fault? I don't think so, the onus of blame is as much with the housemates as it is with Endemol. Decent human beings do consider the effects of doing what they did, although, if we look at the root causes, the two people that started it are slightly deranged anyway. Perhaps we'll just blame the psychologists? Most of them are on the 'celeb' circuit anyway, so insulting them will certainly be enjoyable.

Why should just the spoilsports be the only ones that are heard?

Ofcom can be contacted here.

I recorded the live C4 last night and one of the texts to the show summed it up 'It's time to let the adults in the house'

This is entirely correct as said whoever started it off and whoever said what to whom the whole thing was worse than 2 years old in a kindergarten.

Oh I certainly agree with you EddyBee, I've always held a rather strong belief that the entire bunch of standards need rewriting for 'modern' society, and remember the fact that people can have up to 300 odd channels... so they can always turn over if they don't like something.

To me, as my usual waffling psychology student self, I find the way the show is going absolutely fascinating and I am thoroughly irritated by people that persistantly see this as 'twisted entertainment', I don't think the bulk of viewers watch it purely for entertainment values and find the whole interaction aspect of the show interesting.

But yes, I do watch it for both. </soapbox>

It doesn't hold up. Emma, Marco and Nadia are clearly unstable characters and Emma even spoke about problems. Victor was picked as the gangsta character and Jason as a toughj/soft guy. They were picked to conflict. Any reasonable person would see a high probability that they would not control the conflict. Shell's fragility was also obvious in her casting. You can't put people who are clearly unstable in a confined space and then say woops we didn't expect that. Throwing a match into petrol doesn't mean the blaze is the petrol's fault.

Yes, I imagine it is further than they anticipated - that shows them to be incompetant.

Endemol's response so far seems to be 'calm them down, then let them get on with it again to see how far they'll go next time'. While they've still got people in there who have been violent and have made the most serious of threats they are just asking for more. Then there's the concerns over the other HMs. Shell's reaction was one that gives deep cause for concern - has she been properly psychologically examined and is that possible in that environment?

Well, yes, this is true. But it still has to be considered that housemates would be restrained by the knowledge that their actions are televised, watched by friends and family, by colleagues and neighbours, that generally should act as a restraint.

I agree that they picked them for conflict, but, I refuse to believe they were selected for physical conflict - that's something Endemol don't want, so, something somewhere went wrong... and the blame there lies with psychologists who probably declared "Yeh, they won't want to try and kill themselves..."

At least, that's my take on it. I find it hard to believe that Endemol would want to risk physical violence as the results of it if it went to extreme, say with knives, would have had extreme consequences. Thus, it's difficult to accept that there were picked on the basis of physical conflict. Emotional conflict definately, but not physical.

I'm really surprised at how things have been handled so far. Kitten was expelled for far less. she just drew on walls, climbed on roofs etc. There's been agressive/threatening behaviour and the house was completely trashed. I think Jasons got a warning but you'd think the repercussions would have been far more severe.