Did Ofcom receive and uphold a complaint about Winston perving on Nancy.

And what part of that code would this fall under do you think?

You can get it here by the way http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bro...roadcast-code/

Do you think Winston was treated unfairly ?

Yes. By the presenters of the show.

Jeremy has looked lustily at Stephanie so why hasn't he been warned? Jeremy and Scotty have looked lustily at each other so why haven't they been warned? Stephanie has looked lustily at Jeremy so why hasn't she been warned? There are so many more absurd examples that I could give and I guess some still won't understand. Nancy was bothered by it whereas all the other examples, including Scotty & Jeremy & Tiff, where not bothered. No one can read minds so it is up to the upset party to let someone/BB know (which Nancy did) so they can investigate (review the footage) to see what they think of it.

No. I think Nancy spoke to Big Brother, informed them the situation made her feel very uncomfortable and upset and they wouldn't have been showing duty of care not to act upon that.

Everyone has their own lines and they are all drawn in different places. I saw nothing indecent or unacceptable in tonight's episode. No-one seemed intimidated, threatened or frightened. In my opinion no-one was playing power games, it was just three young people having a good laugh and a bit of fun. Playing up for the cameras - yes of course, but if that was a punishable offence there wouldn't be anyone left in there.

Aside from all the obvious reason (which have already been mentioned) as to why the 2 situations were COMPLETELY different. The fact of the matter is, any sexual action, even a look from a man to a woman can make the woman feel uncomfortable or even threatened if unwanted. Why? because (trying to put it nicely) there have never been many cases of woman raping men. Nor raping and murdering them. Or even serial rapists/killers. This is nature. You will not find many men who would feel uncomfortable or threatened by a woman watching them get changed. In fact, it would probably give them a feel good.

Dear oh dear oh dear !

OP you cannot be serious??

If you are, maybe you should find something else to watch if you cannot handle this programme. There are plenty of warnings!

This is definitely the elephant in the room during these sorts of discussions and it's rarely brought up... Maybe because its a little too serious... Maybe because it complicates an otherwise trivial little argument... I'm not sure.

It is one of those notorious double-standard's. Though its an actual organic one rather than a constructed one. It's a truth, not a PC flag waving stance. I think that's probably why it gets side-stepped so much.

The problem is that generally speaking whenever the issue of 'equality' gets brought up, the example being looked at always has any sense of context or background social history boiled away from it, until its just two very flat statements without anything behind either.

In the case being presented on this thread it's basically skinned down to:

- A man perved on a woman.
- A woman perved on a man.

And that's it. That's what we're expected to engage with and respond to and anything contextual or sociological around it is thrown by the wayside.

Which is all well and good - but reduced to those two floating statements then there really is only one response... Yes, they're both bad, they should both be handled exactly the same way...

...unfortunately though you really can't strip things down to that level, its meaningless. The actual context of what's occured IS hugely relevant and to ignore it is to renders the discussion pointless.

I'm actually not as wanky a PC flag waver as I might come across sometimes! I remember having a conversation with some friends one night around the time of the "hashtag yes all women" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YesAllWomen) debate that raged across social media following a mass shooting in America where a young man had made several videos prior to the crime outlining how he was going to punish women for the fact he was still a virgin. As a man I found the campaign uncomfortable, I think I might even have used the term 'double-standards' and may have done the old "imagine if this had been the other way round" routine... And I remember one of my friends giving me the most simple response to my "Oh I thought you all wanted equality? Now you all hate men! Can't have it both ways!" speeches I've ever heard. She just simply pointed to one of other friends with us and said,

"Sarah's going to go home in a couple of hours... She's walking... And when she gets home she'll text me to tell me she got back okay. Because whenever any of us walk home at night by ourselves we always do... Will you text your mate to tell him you got home okay? Have you ever done that? Do you ever even have to think about that? We do. Always."

And of course she was right. I wouldn't text my mate. He wouldn't text me. It wouldn't even occur to us to do that - because as much as we're as likely to get hit by a bus or get mugged as a woman, we simply don't have that 'other danger' floating over us as well...

So, as I say, it's a double-standard that isn't chosen - its one that just is. And that context is always there, you can't just throw it out and ignore it... I don't even think you can fix it.. It's unfixable really. It'll always be there. Men acting inappropriate with women carries a much much bigger and wider set of historical bags with it than women acting inappropriate with men.

It's amazing how when a man crosses the line he's crucified on this forum.. But when a woman does it every one defends her and makes excuses. Clearly if Scotty or any man did what Tiffany did he'd be history

Playful teasing.

I think that the problem is, those of you who are very offended by Tiffany fondling Scotty in the shower - after he'd opened the door himself, aren't as equally offended by anything he did earlier. The whole evening was an event in itself, made up of various single events to make the whole.

It started with the Truth or Dare, lots of consensual kissing between Jeremy, Scotty and Tiffany.

Tiffany sitting on the bench in a low-cut, breast flaunting top chatting and flirting with Scotty, who was flirting back. They kiss, he puts his head into her breasts. Tiffany did not ask him to do that, he just did it, but she wasn't offended, she was enjoying the whole experience as much as Scotty. All consensual.

Scotty and Jeremy in the pool, on a couple of occasions Scotty pulls down his shorts to show off his penis. This can be seen via the highlights and clips (albeit the clips are blurred out in relevant places). Everybody laughs, all having a whale of a time. All consensual.

He, Jeremy and Tiffany continue to be raucous, sexual play, innuendo, laughter are involved.

Tiffany and Scotty in the bathroom, a communal bathroom at that, he in the shower, opening the door talking and laughing with Tiffany, she looking at, admiring and apparently touching his penis, him still laughing. All, again, very consensual.

I understand some people being offended by overt sexual activity on the TV but you do get a good, hefty, Ofsted approved and upheld warning at the start of the show.

I don't understand all the yabbering and yelling 'double standards' when nobody anywhere in this whole evening of events complained, said no, pushed anybody away, acted offended, nothing. Not one time did any of them express concern about what was going on, which would be why BB didn't once stop them from doing what they were doing and ask if all was okay.

There is no double standard.

Just a lack of standards

You clearly don't understand the concept of consent. Thanks for the laugh though.

That's not how I remember it. People only said anything about it after Nancy complained, and the vast majority on here said that BB were over the top in their treatment of Winston.

He wasn't. Where are people getting this retrospective history from?
Yes, some had a go at him, as you might expect, but the majority of people on here said that although they didn't like Winston they thought BB were making a mountain out of a molehill.

You can't make out that the majority of this forum crucified Winston for that because it just simply didn't happen. Most were critical of BB.


That other thread talking about the use of 'double standards' to compare and contrast housemates on here is so on the money.

It's like on the TV show The Wright Stuff where if Matthew Wright doesn't agree with a caller he just asks "What if the (whatever) was black" even if the contexts are different.

What a superb post but then to have it immediately followed by \/\ / \/ must make you wonder why you bothered

I agree.

Which this won't contravene. Get a grip.

Just watch how many posters will completely ignore these two excellent, excellent posts. The truth can be very uncomfortable when posters are caught up in the frenzy of favourite/least favourite waffling.

I disapprove of what Scotty and Tiff both did, they should of both been reprimanded to be honest. There is having fun which I am all for, but to behave inappropriately on TV could send out the message that this is acceptable behaviour when it is not.
I just hate what kind of message that sends out especially when something like that may of happened to you.

Have fun and a laugh I am all for and even prefer it to all the rows, should be more laughter and more fun IMO, but don't behave inappropriately and take liberties and that goes for everyone in the house.

It is worth noting that they do not edit the show BB do.

You could argue that he was treated unfairly but not because of his clearly pervy behaviour towards the women. He was made a scapegoat for his dispicible comments about gay adoption made before he went into the house. Although his comments about his back being towards the wall in the house were horrible aswell

Your bib - this applies to many a show on TV, several of which appear way before the watershed and with very little warning and watched by many more millions than the paltry viewership of CBB.

I personally don't agree that anybody took liberties in what happened in last night's show, I did see a lot of consensual sexual play which perhaps wasn't to your taste (we were warned when the show started!) and that's fine, everybody's different, but I didn't see any liberties being taken. I haven't heard of any of the 3 participants making a formal complaint today so far.

I see that Ofsted dismissed the complaints made regarding Winston's 'back to the wall remark'.

This does make me laugh "However, Ofcom are still assessing complaints made over shocking scenes aired last week that saw American star Tiffany Pollard mistakenly believe that fellow housemate David Gest had died." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz..._campaign=1490 Some people have way too much time on their hands