The so-called 'warnings' that are put up before BB are highly suspect. I have two issues with the ones last night:

1. The wording is NOT the wording that all other shows use to warn people that there may be offensive or shocking material in the programme. Usually these are simple, formal warnings, such as: 'Scenes may contain content which may distress/disturb some viewers.' What we're getting on BB is 'tabloid' language which is specifically written to draw people in.

2. Last night the warning mentioned 'unsafe sexual practices'. If BB are showing unsafe sexual practices on their show, then they are duty-bound to STOP those practices - because they are UNSAFE.

BB are being mealy-mouthed and totally irresponsible on both counts. In my view.

Could be wrong but the reason for these warnings has something to do with something shown in a series not so long ago and I suspect Offcom told them to do such warnings as there was lots of complains and they started half way through that series.

1. The wording shown in front of each section of the show was more than enough (even to the point of over-stating) what was coming up.
The words used are more than enough so that people likely to be offended should stop watching.
(I do agree/believe that they are used to draw people in)

2. Yes it is UNSAFE, however it is not illegal. Therefore they are NOT duty bound to stop them.
Smoking cigarettes is UNSAFE, Crossing the road is UNSAFE, Air-travel is UNSAFE, Over-eating fatty foods is UNSAFE.

The big brother warnings are penned to exactly reflect the wording that someone who hasn't seen it but read about it in the daily mail would use to complain to Ofcom. So that when the complaint comes to be heard C5 can say "we did warn about a TORRENT of HIGHLY offensive language, we even put torrent in all-caps, so they did know what was coming" and that will fend off the fines that C5 started getting for going outside the what a reasonable viewer may expect from a TV show, and force Ofcom to stick to enforcing at the broadcasting code and not just responding to what a few cry babies can't handle.

Not sure why ANY warnings are given after the watershed.

You take a chance getting up in the morning, crossing the street, or sticking your face in a fan.

(to quote Frank Drebin...)

I guess it comes down to BB's role as makers of the series. They seem more concerned about their fixtures and fittings than they do about the physical well being of their housemates. By not doing anything about it, they are condoning it. As you say, it's only when something is illegal, or potentially so, that they are willing to take action (to save their own asses) - after all, they chucked a housemate out last series for pretending to dry hump another (I think?).

That was when the other person didn't want the attention/felt uncomfortable and it was correct to take action.
Laura and Marco are WILLING participants, as are the viewers who do not switch channel.

So as long as the participants are willing, it's OK for them to potentially strangle one another on television? Imagine if that actually happened. Consenting to be asphyxiated is acceptable?

I'm talking about the ethics rather than about the legality.

Potentially being the operative word.

Consenting - Yes.

As for ETHICS, they are a set of GUIDING principals not a hard set of rules, that's what LAW is for.

I'm not saying that ethics are a hard set of rules. They are, as you say, a set of guiding principles, which BB might do well to follow.