Originally Posted by Eurostar:
“I think they could easily have shown the conversation and left the viewers to make up their own minds : it's the formal warning part that's controversial.”
The two go together. The available choices are not to show it, to show it with a warning, or to risk the wrath of Ofcom. After Ofcom found against C5 over Conor in bb13, BB has been much more careful to issue strong enough warnings (perhaps sometimes too strong).
Remember that it's the broadcaster that has to carry the can with Ofcom; I suspect C5 did not appreciate being dumped in the poo by BB's failure to give Conor a strong enough warning and may have made it clear to Endemol that it must not happen again.
People should consider whether they think BB should have to obey the broadcasting code like every other tv program, or whether it's supposed to get some special exemption.
Quote:
“Must be the first in BB history that a HM has received a warning over their general opinions of society.”
Evander wasn't warned for his general opinions of society.
Originally Posted by wonkeydonkey:
“I don't know what you mean by 'her motive'. Once she is out of the house she is likely to be asked her opinion about other housemates, and this is an opinion she might well give. I am not sure I can ever remember people being being angry at BB for showing something that happened in the house before.
”
There was a very similar reaction to something in one of the recent BB or CBB series. People were up in arms in much the same way, arguing that BB had done the offending by choosing to show it. I think that something about the way BB phrased the warning may have been what put that meme into people's heads, but I can't quite remember when it was or which HM was involved.
Quote:
“I can't remember the wording of all Scott's warnings, but I think at least one was along those lines.”
Evander's warning didn't seem unusual to me, and he accepted it readily enough.
