Mind you, they WON'T be, but the question here is SHOULD they be?

no, weren't you one of the people opposing her being in there after the comments?

I've said a number of times that she never should have been cast, but since she was she should be paid. I'm on the fence about if she should have been left in the house and I doubt I've contradicted that much in posting--I've talked about how she's garbage and deserves no sympathy for being booted, but that's not the same thing as saying the show had any right to break her contract for something she never tried to hide, and that they certainly knew about all along.

And really what does any of this have to do with Channel 5 lying about the situation and using the fact that they know damned well they'll never get punished for this to create their latest publicity sensation?

If you boot her, pay her sick fascist a***, get her out of there and never mention her again. I mean if you are honest and not immoral lying sacks of s**** like Channel 5 are.

Is Tila not getting paid? If so would she have grounds for a lawsuit against C5 for unfair dismissal? I think she should have as ejecting someone for something that happened 2 years before they went into the house goes against big brother's own rules, and if she's not getting paid for this series that really is outrageous. Then again, there may be something in the contract she would have had to signed that allows this but it would be good if she did have grounds for legal action as it would give a wake up call to C5 for making ridiculous decisions like this.

OF COURSE CH5 Knew about her past comments in 2013

The real reason why Tila was removed was because anything deemed anti-semetic is untouchable, and there were complaints from viewers regarding her opinions, and her picture photoshop apparently standing outside Auschwitz with swastika

CH5 guilty? Jury decides

Oh come on. This isn't about some untouchable holy filter being unfairly applied. This was a put up job from moment #1. Channel 5 couldn't possibly not have known--why that's the case has been discussed in countless other posts so I won't repeat. What I will expand on is that I'm positive they also had every reason to know how the public would react and planned for all of that too (as well as I think knowing how the regulatory agencies are going to act--or not--as the case will be).

Tila is insane/mentally ill and never should have been on the show. Channel 5 is arguably even worse, because either she's a total catspaw they simply used, or they're cooperating with her and had some agreement under the table the whole time.

We're they punished by the authorities? Who are these authorities and what was the punishment?

Future punishment (fines, presumably), not past ones.

Presumably OFCOM would be the ones to take action... except they never do with Big Brother. They're too busy entertaining big issues like "did Britain's Got Talent Hide a Dog?" Whereas BB gets away with everything.

Or there are other (more rarely used) forms of sanction besides ones from OFCOM, presumably. Again, it's not like it will actually happen. This is more about if people think there SHOULD be any accountability here.

The ridiculous decision was picking her as a HM, not getting rid of her.

I think it would be outrageous if she were paid.

Which of BB's own rules do you think they broke by removing her?

I think Ofcom's record on BB is pretty good. They have decided against C4 and C5, and I think they were right in those cases and also right in at least most of the cases when they didn't decide against C4 or C5.

But setting aside whether Ofcom would do anything, what are the grounds on which you think they should? What has C5 done that you think breaches the broadcasting code?

Yes. For blatantly lying and claiming innocence. Her Nazi stuff is on her Wikipedia page.

They cast her BECAUSE she's an insane conspiracy theorist Nazi.

No, C5 should not be punished.

People should be allowed personal views. In this case my opinion is her views are wrong, but she should be allowed to have them and be challenged on them.

At the end of the day CBB is a trashy reality TV programme and nothing more.

Another complete overreaction to a situation that most viewers didn't care about.

No, they shouldn't as they had no idea what she was like. I doubt they would have put her in if they'd known what she'd written on her Facebook account.

If they had no idea what she was like that makes C5 incompetent beyond belief.

It's the main thing about her and is all over the Web!

I think they knew & a major sponsor gave them the hard word to boot her.

No...next.

Imo channel 5 should have known and I think they did (google search)so she had to be ejected.

It is nice to know that channel 5 have a line which if crossed has consequences.

With the train wreck which was bb15 , Helen also in bb16 ,(admission from channel 5 boss in his opinion that her inclusion was wrong )and these disclaimers at every ad break - it would appear that channel 5 don't care and know Ofcom won't do anything ever no matter how many complaints are received.

Maybe the real lesson is a warning to all Facebook users - don't post photos that could cost a large fee and adverse publicity a few years later.

Tila's full contract should be honoured. And that means she should get her full fee.

The worse thing that will happen if it wasn't know is the researcher whose probably not paid will get the sack.

None of us actually know what's in her contract, but it's likely that if they can throw her out, they can not pay her too.

I don't think she should be paid anything at all.

Well I voted no. But its up to Tila if her contract hasn't been honoured.

Ultimately it was up to CH5 to do its research correctly, not Tila herself.

If her contract has been honoured then no. As much as I'd have liked to have seen Tila in the house and her (old) views challenged, its CH5's programme and they can do what they like.

Yes, absolutely.

But it's impossible to believe that they wouldn't have known about her past. It would demand that we believe that not one single producer. researcher or presenter were aware of it when her past is only one google away?? Impossible. Which means that they included her in the line-up knowing exactly who and what she was.

Unless she's seriously broken some other rule while in the house, we have to assume that it's her past that's caused her to be kicked out, borne out by CH.5's statement. In which case, the fault lies solely with C5 and they need to take full responsibility for it. And yes, that would include paying her her fee.

But it does not demand that "not one single producer. researcher or presenter were aware of it".

As I said in another thread, various different people would be involved at different stages and even if some of them knew, that wouldn't mean they all did. The decision to throw her out might have been made by someone who hadn't even known she'd been picked as a housemate.

In any case, no fault lies with C5 for what she said, and if she can be thrown out (clearly she can), then it's possible she can be denied payment too. Then it would be right not to pay her, imo, just as it was right to throw her out.

There may be some people involved in picking her who should be sacked, though.

Ok, that's a possibility but it really indicates a complete lack of incompetance and joined-up thinking on the part of Ch.5.


Of course not - has anyone suggested this? - but equally, she's not to blame for her inclusion on CBB, is she? And for her to be chucked out for something she did/said 2 years ago seems such a strange development. If her past is being held against her and seen as a valid reason for kicking her off the show, how come eg. Jim Davidson, Hopkins etc passed the 'past' test?

I'm not for one second defending this awful woman, and couldn't care less that she's gone but, unless we're not getting the full picture, and she's since said something to justify the decision, it seems really bizarre to chuck someone out for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with now and the show.

Yes, they used her for free publicity. A bit of controversy early on to spike interest and they get to keep her fee.

5 should be punished by the authorities for allowing Prince Harry to remain a prince and for allowing the Queen to do a Nazi salute when she was a child.