I'm just saying, that none of the kids were there without the parents permission, all they have agreed to this all, and were in the known of what was going to happen.
Just saying.
Just saying.
The producers need the parents permission before having the kids on the show
1 of 2
It is a fact. They can't just go and have any kids on shows without the parental consent. It has to all be signed by the child's guardian, for legal and insurance reasons.
Originally Posted by FingersAndToes:
“It is a fact. They can't just go and have any kids on shows without the parental consent. It has to all be signed by the child's guardian, for legal and insurance reasons.”
“It is a fact. They can't just go and have any kids on shows without the parental consent. It has to all be signed by the child's guardian, for legal and insurance reasons.”
Ever think that maybe they asked BEFORE they even went in - along the lines of "we need to you give us permission to show shots of your family."
They showed them on NOW yesterday as well.
Now, can we move on - pathetic discussion.
As you say - the child's legal guardian and it could be that Charlie's mother is acting in loco parentis and may well have given permission.
As I've said, I have no doubt that Kiki did see her mother once the cameras stopped rolling.
As I've said, I have no doubt that Kiki did see her mother once the cameras stopped rolling.
Originally Posted by rmwebs:
“
Now, can we move on - pathetic discussion.”
“
Now, can we move on - pathetic discussion.”
With all due respect, probably best not to tell people what to discuss
Originally Posted by AoibheannRose:
“Their other parent (or a guardian) obviously must have agreed to it.”
“Their other parent (or a guardian) obviously must have agreed to it.”
Well, then all the hurt feelings the little girl went through are caused by the guardian who signed the consent.
Originally Posted by Eve_Dyer:
“As you say - the child's legal guardian and it could be that Charlie's mother is acting in loco parentis and may well have given permission.
As I've said, I have no doubt that Kiki did see her mother once the cameras stopped rolling.”
“As you say - the child's legal guardian and it could be that Charlie's mother is acting in loco parentis and may well have given permission.
As I've said, I have no doubt that Kiki did see her mother once the cameras stopped rolling.”
True, but it's wrong to blame the producers on this one, as the guardian, whoever they are agreed to this, and knew fully well what was going to happen.
Originally Posted by rmwebs:
“Ever think that maybe they asked BEFORE they even went in - along the lines of "we need to you give us permission to show shots of your family."
They showed them on NOW yesterday as well.
Now, can we move on - pathetic discussion.”
“Ever think that maybe they asked BEFORE they even went in - along the lines of "we need to you give us permission to show shots of your family."
They showed them on NOW yesterday as well.
Now, can we move on - pathetic discussion.”
Not only is it an utterly pathetic discussion, but the OP has put this view in another thread already and is tragically hoping someone might believe it if they keep saying it enough.
Charlie may well have given permission for her child to appear: all families appear when someone is evicted, and people often pop up for a word on the spin off show. That OBVIOUSLY doesn't mean or imply that Charlie had the faintest idea what the door task was about. Now give up - you are just trying to stir up dislike based on nothing whatsoever.
Originally Posted by RobInnes:
“This is presumably why Charlie knew it was her daughter behind the door as opposed to her mother.”
“This is presumably why Charlie knew it was her daughter behind the door as opposed to her mother.”
She knew it would be her daughter because that is what anyone in the world would have guessed.
Originally Posted by Rachelette:
“With all due respect, probably best not to tell people what to discuss”
“With all due respect, probably best not to tell people what to discuss”
Maybe, but it is a pointless discussion. It seems the OP is trying to prove Charlie is a 'fake', when there is a reasonable, rational explanation.
Originally Posted by FingersAndToes:
“True, but it's wrong to blame the producers on this one, as the guardian, whoever they are agreed to this, and knew fully well what was going to happen.”
“True, but it's wrong to blame the producers on this one, as the guardian, whoever they are agreed to this, and knew fully well what was going to happen.”
Yes, they knew that the child would see her mother as it was all part of a staged performance.
Originally Posted by autumn:
“Maybe, but it is a pointless discussion. It seems the OP is trying to prove Charlie is a 'fake', when there is a reasonable, rational explanation.”
“Maybe, but it is a pointless discussion. It seems the OP is trying to prove Charlie is a 'fake', when there is a reasonable, rational explanation.”
I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just pointing out that the producers aren't to blame for Kiki's disappointment, as the guardian knew exactly what was going on, and was most likely just behind the next door.
Originally Posted by autumn:
“Maybe, but it is a pointless discussion. It seems the OP is trying to prove Charlie is a 'fake', when there is a reasonable, rational explanation.”
“Maybe, but it is a pointless discussion. It seems the OP is trying to prove Charlie is a 'fake', when there is a reasonable, rational explanation.”
LOL people always do it on the forums. I don't think anyone can be swayed by other peoples opinions on a forum, just what they see for themselves.
Which is a good thing I think!
I lurves Charlie, I want her to win!
Originally Posted by autumn:
“Maybe, but it is a pointless discussion. It seems the OP is trying to prove Charlie is a 'fake', when there is a reasonable, rational explanation.”
“Maybe, but it is a pointless discussion. It seems the OP is trying to prove Charlie is a 'fake', when there is a reasonable, rational explanation.”
They really think that Charlie (and Eric of course) knew that their children were behind a door, showed no interest or emotion, then Charlie (we didn't see Eric) pretended to be upset on cue? What kind of psychopaths would do that? This has been a pretty moderate, even rather relaxing forum during this series (to reflect the pleasant and relaxed series) but that is really desperate and sick. What a truly disgusting allegation to make against the mother of a young child.
Originally Posted by FingersAndToes:
“Well, then all the hurt feelings the little girl went through are caused by the guardian who signed the consent.”
“Well, then all the hurt feelings the little girl went through are caused by the guardian who signed the consent.”
She'd have been too busy texting all her friends to tell them she'd been on the telly to be upset for long.
Originally Posted by vald:
“She'd have been too busy texting all her friends to tell them she'd been on the telly to be upset for long.”
“She'd have been too busy texting all her friends to tell them she'd been on the telly to be upset for long.”
She probably was. It must be the most exciting week of her life.
Originally Posted by wonkeydonkey:
“They really think that Charlie (and Eric of course) knew that their children were behind a door, showed no interest or emotion, then Charlie (we didn't see Eric) pretended to be upset on cue? What kind of psychopaths would do that? This has been a pretty moderate, even rather relaxing forum during this series (to reflect the pleasant and relaxed series) but that is really desperate and sick. What a truly disgusting allegation to make against the mother of a young child.”
“They really think that Charlie (and Eric of course) knew that their children were behind a door, showed no interest or emotion, then Charlie (we didn't see Eric) pretended to be upset on cue? What kind of psychopaths would do that? This has been a pretty moderate, even rather relaxing forum during this series (to reflect the pleasant and relaxed series) but that is really desperate and sick. What a truly disgusting allegation to make against the mother of a young child.”
The people who are looking after the kids knew exactly what was going on and what was happening. Do you really think the show producers would risk huge lawsuits and possible insurance claims by using people's kids on the show without parental consent.
I thought we were supposed to talk about the show here, but each and every time it turns to be about other FM, which I think is not allowed, o the purpose of the forum.
Originally Posted by DiamondDoll:
“All the families are there anyway so what exactly is the problem?
”
“All the families are there anyway so what exactly is the problem?
”
My only problem is the "Poor Charlie" attitude, when the children were on the show with the parent's permission.
Originally Posted by FingersAndToes:
“The people who are looking after the kids knew exactly what was going on and what was happening. Do you really think the show producers would risk huge lawsuits and possible insurance claims by using people's kids on the show without parental consent.
I thought we were supposed to talk about the show here, but each and every time it turns to be about other FM, which I think is not allowed, o the purpose of the forum.”
“The people who are looking after the kids knew exactly what was going on and what was happening. Do you really think the show producers would risk huge lawsuits and possible insurance claims by using people's kids on the show without parental consent.
I thought we were supposed to talk about the show here, but each and every time it turns to be about other FM, which I think is not allowed, o the purpose of the forum.”
Either you are baiting or you are fantasizing. Of course a show does not have to get a parent's separate permission for each second that their child is shown on a show. If Charlie is happy for her child to be shown meeting and greeting at the end, that covers any other minor role she might appear in. Just how desperate are you to do damage to Charlie that you keep repeating this demonstrably false and silly non-point?
Originally Posted by wonkeydonkey:
“Either you are baiting or you are fantasizing. Of course a show does not have to get a parent's separate permission for each second that their child is shown on a show. If Charlie is happy for her child to be shown meeting and greeting at the end, that covers any other minor role she might appear in. Just how desperate are you to do damage to Charlie that you keep repeating this demonstrably false and silly non-point?”
“Either you are baiting or you are fantasizing. Of course a show does not have to get a parent's separate permission for each second that their child is shown on a show. If Charlie is happy for her child to be shown meeting and greeting at the end, that covers any other minor role she might appear in. Just how desperate are you to do damage to Charlie that you keep repeating this demonstrably false and silly non-point?”
What? Damage Charlie? YOU might be taking this a bit too seriously.
The parent will be explained how and in witch kind of situations the children will appear on the show.
Originally Posted by FingersAndToes:
“What? Damage Charlie? YOU might be taking this a bit too seriously.
The parent will be explained how and in witch kind of situations the children will appear on the show.”
“What? Damage Charlie? YOU might be taking this a bit too seriously.
The parent will be explained how and in witch kind of situations the children will appear on the show.”
I really don't think anyone not already feverishly searching for ways to have a go at Charlie would think that she and Eric knew that their children were behind a door. It would mean that they were two utterly heartless, manipulative, emotionless monsters. You really think that before the series started Charlie and Eric were told, "your children will appear behind a door in the last week and you have to pretend not to know that they are there, even though the children will be able to hear you. Now just sign that you agree with this. "
You don't think that, do you? Because you are not actually mad.
1 of 2
