-----

why warnings for two consenting adults (plus Marco said the safety was on which I think means the belt latch was securely through the material....but even if it wasn't on a safety, it was still two consenting adults and she had a grip on it where it met his neck which also functioned as a safety). Regardless, it was two consenting adults so I don't see why they should get warnings when they didn't harm others, themselves or break the law. I don't like either of them but I don't think they should have received warning for playful pretend choking (lol, I can't believe I typed that).

Now that I think about it, can they hear BB in that pod? Just wondering, since the HMs can't hear it in the garden (hence Georgina walking into the garden letting Marco know what BB said).

"This is Big Brother. Could one of the housemates tell Laura to stop strangling Marco immediately."

Then later in the diary room, "Marco, Big Brother would like you to refrain from participating in any dangerous behaviour, including auto-erotic asphyxiation, while in the Big Brother house."

Or they could just film it and broadcast it to get people talking, like we are now.

Fair enough I agree with you. Considering BB has stopped pillowfights before, it's extremely bizarre they didn't step in.

By the looks of it, Marco has always had inefficient air supply. He lacked proper oxygen to the brain at birth.

Some of us responsible parents have security and other programs in place that won't allow such things to even appear on their child's laptop. I can't even get onto DS with my daughter's laptop, NetIntelligence won't let me as it's deemed unsuitable. I only found that out the other day and had to change the settings for myself (only I can do that, she can't).

There are ways and means that a responsible parent can ensure that their child isn't watching anything unsuitable without having to look over their shoulder every 5 seconds. If they don't have such things in place then more fool them, but they can still monitor what their children watch by only letting them use the laptop in their presence.

I imagine they would have if it had got to a point where it looked like real strangulation or had it continued to a point of danger, rather than Marco grinning like a demented cheshire cat.

They can't or don't intervene if consensual sex is occurring, as we know - I believe they do provide condoms for use.

At no point tonight did either of them look to be in danger, not consenting or unhappy about what was going on.

I, on the other hand, have only one eye as I've gouged out the other one watching that crap

They usually can but, due to the second house scenario, I don't think they are using the outside announcement facility. There surely has to be an intercom in the pod though, for emergencies at least - H&S and all of that.

They stop pillow fights due to the risk of breakages and damage to their 'fixtures and fittings' I think.

Sorry for the spamming, I'm up late and my multi-quote wasn't working.

And that spate of pork pies thefts in Peckham.

I agree, I don't think either of them deserve a warning for doing what adults do.

However, I do think Big Brother should have intervened, because it is unsafe, it's just not a good look, and if they want to do it they can do it once they're out of the house.

I also would have loved to see the reaction of the other housemates if thy had all heard "Laura please stop choking marco immediately" or words to that effect.

Television basically raised me for better or worse but television isn't responsible for parenting children. Whatever kids are doing TV isn't to blame.

I think the warning at the start of the show covers the entire show and the mini-warnngs at the start of each section cover just that section.

Oh, I know. And I'm sure the producers would never dream that their curiously specific yet ambiguous warnings might serve to entice people to continue watching. Butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

I agree. I didn't mind having to watch it - even if it was cringeworthy and attention-seeking - but BB didn't step in which surprised me. It kind of gives the impression that they were more interested in ratings and controversy instead of the welfare of their housemates. Not really a surprise really.

It's just strange that in the same episode, BB intervene 3 times when Marco is messing with a microphone and then do NOTHING when he has a belt around his neck and getting strangled.

Good point made.

NOT a problem with Marco being strangled but should not have been shown.The BB editors and storytellers need stricter guidance.

We know now that housemates are really 'cast members' and their ''plots' carefully scripted before they enter house.So you have the angry gay character,the 'male models','the twins','the rich guy' .Each season same characters but now being sourced from audience of BOTS ....

......strangely no Scottish housemates again this year BB.

Marco seems like a 'death by misadventure' verdict waiting to happen, sadly.

Is that Laura's porn name; Miss Adventure?

Or someone just murders him and the police put it down to that.

Just to be clear, any child whose uncaring parents let him or her watch Big Brother, whether it be on TV, or laptop or anywhere.... well, the child has FAR more problems than watching dodgy TV.

Parents need to accept SOME responsibility somewhere down the line.

Actually, for better or worse, the US gave birth to reality tv. In its infancy was Candid Camera, then the famed PBS series, "An American Family"....then, closer to what we have now but actually more raw and real, was the first season of MTV's The Real World.
The earlier shows were a far cry from the fame whoring celebutards who we are now inundated with, jostling for camera time and willing to act like pure trash for a buck.