How is what happened with Kitten any less "blatant"? If anything, BB was more explicit about what would happen in the Kitten case.

Of course he was right about it ultimately being BB that determined the prize. But the way the numbers add up doesn't prove that. It would be just as much BB determining it if the numbers didn't add up in that way, as they didn't in BBs 5 and 10.

Wouldn't ch5 or more to the point bb be in trouble if the total prize fund didn't equate to £150000? Surely the housemates all signed contracts to that effect, unless of course the contract said upto a maximum of £150000.

No. Since it's clear that the winner doesn't have to get the whole prize (since neither Aaron nor Luke A did), why would there be something that said the whole original amount had to be given to housemates?

In any case, the whole original amount was not given to HMs in BBs 5 or 10.

First of all you'd have to explain to me what happened with Kitten. I wasn't making any sort of comparison, I was asking a question. My point being that if Kitten (or anyone else) was told to complete a task to win (or lose) a certain amount of money, it's less blatant than saying, "Right, you broke the rules!" and reducing the prize fund by £100k.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If the winner's prize fund was down £2,500 for Joel's pizza, £100 for each of the suitcases, et cetera then Joel would have been wrong. He wasn't. He knew damned well that BB was just messing around with them.

BB 16: The prize fund will now be reduced for every time someone spoke

BB 5: The prize will be reduced by £1000 for every minute Kitten remains in the house.

(Kitten was thrown out for excessive rule-breaking and was refusing to leave.)

But that was not the only thing that reduced the prize in BB5. (See Wikipedia for specifics.)

Why would he have been wrong? It would still have been BB choosing how things ended up (by which tasks and twists BB chose to introduce and BB's decisions about what things meant in terms of the prize).


The winner still gets less than the original £150,000.

Okay, thanks. We are making the same point, but have a different interpretation of 'blatant'. What I meant is flagrantly meddling with the prize fund, without specific warnings. Of course being explicit, as with kitten, could be described as 'blatant' too, I guess. I'd call it fair game. Does that clear things up?

On that point (re "blatant"), yes.

*wrong thread*

Perhaps you should start again. I'm struggling to follow the thread of this conversation and we seem to be talking at cross purposes. What point are you trying to make? That Joel was right, or that he was wrong?!

My point is what I said a few posts back: Joel was right about it ultimately being BB that determined the prize. But the way the numbers add up doesn't prove that. It would be just as much BB determining it if the numbers didn't add up in that way, as they didn't in BBs 5 and 10.

Surely the budget for the prize fund was always gonna be 150,000 - how it was divided and played around with is just ***Showbiz***

Since the prize was reduced in at least 2 BBs, rather than split but with the total remaining the same, why do people think it always going to be £150,000?

I'm with you so far..


Then how do we know he was right? The way the numbers add up shows that BB was always going to be giving £150k away, notwithstanding any Monopoly money deals.


I think you're employing a rather redundant interpretation of that phrase. Yes, if they said the winner gets £1 then that would be what they'd decided. The point is, they had already decided before the show began that they would be giving away £150k, they advertised it as such and they followed through with that plan.

Nobody knew that is was always going to be £150k apart from the production team. It turns out that that is in fact the case.

But people say "it was always going to be £150k" as if was known.

Some things are inevitable, it turns out.

Then it's fate and nothing to do with what Joel said about BB.

With hindsight we can see that Joel guessed correctly based on certain logical assumptions. The pizza was free.

I know it's been fiddled with in the past - I simply said that as far as the show/production/BB was concerned (not necessarily the HM's or the public) the prize fund was always gonna be 150,000

We don't need hindsight, because we know that BB decides which tasks are included, what amounts they involve, and so on. BB is just as much in control regardless of whether the amounts given to HMs add up to the original amount or not.

And so where the suitcases HMs "paid" to get. So what?

The pizza was freeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!