To be honest I don't think they do either.
I think that the PCness would come from BB themselves where they feel that they are doing what they ought to do at the time due to the public sentiment at the time. For example, feeling that they have to clamp down hard on something in one series due to something controversial which happened in the series before.

Don't get me wrong, I think your post was very plausible and well written. It's just that BB producers choose which rules are important when and if it suits them at any particular time.
I don't think that the contract you speak of means anything other than they perhaps make the contestants agree that BB have the right to eject anybody when and if they feel like it.
In most cases it's less that a housemate has done something 'wrong' where they 'must' be ejected, but more that a housemate is ejected on BB's whim. Housemates have been ejected before for the most petty things. I think Kitten got ejected for some really daft reason. Then you have those who have been ejected and those who haven't for pretty much the same misdemeanour.

Okay fair point, you can omit my 'not really' from the start of my post.
Edit: There, done it myself.

The fact is in was in many ways set up and part of the appeal of BB that is a fact. You have a house and stick a half naked page 3 model running around in it followed by a Ken who clearly had an outdated set of views. Combine that with drink and a number of out spoken z list celebs taking the moral high ground on issues.

What did anyone else expect to happen? Does that excuse their actions no but the point of them being their is because of the way they are. When they then get booted out because of the way they are you have to ask what is the point of them being there?

You have to question what the point is of carrying on with CBB. You put in people that are going to cause issue then have to boot then out when they do. Was this just part of the plan. Can anyone honestly tell that they did not see Ken getting kicked out from day one ?

Ha ha, fair play and as I say I certainly do take your points on board. Apologies if my reply sounded a bit brusque, you can never tell round these parts as it's pretty hairy at times in other threads.

Agreed, I just don't know why Jade Goody, Jo and Danielle weren't removed. But that's much water under bridges

I know, and actually there are quite a few other examples which are comparable. But, that seems to be down to BB producer's mystical agendas, which is a whole other issue

The producers decisions will be mainly driven by financial considerations.
However baffling you may find them, they are just trying to make money.

Thanks, no need to apologise because I was probably guilty of being more contrary than I needed to be, and you haven't said anything wrong.
I know what you mean with not being able to tell on here at times. Sometimes the mood on the forum can affect the tone of your own posts and I can definitely be guilty of that at times.

Good point. I think that might be a good example of the moving goalposts of what BB deem to be acceptable or not, and perhaps even an example of their decisions being led by their own perception of a public mood at the time, which they may amend for the following series.

What could possibly go wrong?

Your point there reminds me of a part of that Bill Hicks stand-up comedy routine where he speaks of an innocent farmhand being told to 'Pick up the gun'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbO0f9uaWZE

Totally agree, some people obviously never watched BB1 , the show has lost its identity, it was started to be controversial, now I am sick of reading post from do gooding bigotswho have zero idea about racism etc

If Callum eyed up the girls backsides nobody would bat an eyelid, if Ken did it he is an old pervert. Isnt that ageism you do gooders????

The 'offended' have naff all to with them being turfed out. If viewers had a say, last year's winner Helen Wood would have been given the boot, instead of winning.