In the so called good old days, we had one fairly safe winner after the next.
Imo, both Jason and Helen would have been out on their arses long before the end, never mind end up as winners.
I can't make up my mind where it's good or bad for the show to have controversial winners like Jason and Helen.

What is controversial about Jason?

Helen is controversial; that's a no-brainer, but Jason?

Jason is highly uncontroversial. Straight white male gets a sympathy edit and acts like a misery guts near the end. One of the most straightforward mass vote baits there has ever been.

Exactly.

Sore loser OP

I think Jason is more like the winners of the Channel 4 years. He doesn't piss his bed or bully other housemates like a typical C5 winner. I am so pleased a good decent guy won... I really had started to despair.

Childish at best. We weren't in the competition to lose.

Evelyn was my fav, but I knew she had zero chance of winning, so Jason winning was OK by me.

Jason possibly. Helen never in a million years.

The OP's post doesn't seem like that to me.

It's an observation about the type of winners in the C5 era versus the winners in the C4 era.

I don't necessarily agree that Jason was controversial, but I can see the point about him being unlikely to have won BB in the C4 era, but who knows for sure?

Helen would have been out on her arse at the very first eviction which she herself has said and she would never have won if she hadn't been given immunity.

As for Jason, though he wasn't my favourite I think he makes a great winner and very much fits an old fashioned mold in that he was seemingly treated badly and overcame it. I think his story was benefited by the length of the show. If it had gone on much longer or as long as the Channel 4 era people probably would have got sick of him.

Never been a winner who was uch a blatant game player.
Taking the money when he knew others needed it far more than he did.
Evicting the 'peoples winner' which she was at that time.
Constantly moody and miserable.
Constantly threatening to walk out.
Threatening to tear the place up.

A far cry from the Brian's, Pete's and co.

Best look up the word controversial, Jason really?

I can understand a controversial hm winning as they still dominate the series, Jason on the other hand zzzzzzz for 6 weeks.
BB's headed in the completely wrong direction. worrying days.

This

What a dire/undeserving 'winner'.

aaron from 2012 as well.

Or maybe this is the average viewer saying they've had enough of so-called entertainment in the form of gobbing off, stripping off and getting off under or on top of the covers and preferred the days where a relatively ordinary person could be themselves and still be in with a chance of winning.

I know that shows have to evolve to survive but this has evolved into a ludicrous mutant of its former self and perhaps this was people saying enough is enough. Jason wasn't a scripted, exhibitionist, gobby reality bore and that might just have been enough for the majority.

I agree that neither he nor Helen would have come close to winning in the distant past though. Helen because she wouldn't have had a free pass and would have been evicted the first chance anyone got and Jason because he wouldn't have stood out so much as a seemingly decent, ordinary bloke among a house full of me me me buffoons.

I do so agree, especially the BIB. Seeing Jason mentioned in the same sentence as that witch Helen Wood makes me go

Brian and Pete were massive game players in my opinion and much more disgusting and deceitful about it. As for threatening to walk, being selfish and aggressive what about Nadia

I don't remember the HMs being able to evict anybody on Channel 4's BB, or even if they had immunity & free passes in those days, so the OP may be right.

There have been dozens of HMs over the years that have threatened to walk & very few have done so.

It's a running joke on BB.

Oh dear but the public liked him for what he is and thats why he won.

All h/m have a game plan and all h/m play the game. It is a gameshow.

I didn't realise BB was a charity for the poor and needy. I thought it was a gameshow.

At no time was Queen Lateysha the 'people's winner', she was not topping any favourite polls and she was an unlikable, lazy, self entitled h/m who got her peasants to do her dirty work.

Possibly agree but without 24/7 live feed it is impossible to say constantly.

As many h/m did this year and in every year of BB. I do think BB should kick the first one out that says they want to leave as it would discourage the rest from asking.

I didn't blame him for that, BB had pis**** on him from a great height for 7 weeks.

Jason, a far cry from Brian or Pete I agree but your statement depends on the 'co'.

C5 are so weak at how bb is run, it's like they don't even care over things, as long as money is made that's all that they give a damn over. Richard Desmond, Ben frow and Jeff Ford have ruined a perfectly good show into something trashy, it's all about chav now, no more and no less.

This confuses me. When have the following pissed the bed/were bullies:

Julian
Rylan
Gary
Katie price
James Hill
Scotty T
Aaron
Luke A
Sam
Chloe

?? When you really say 'piss bed' you only mean Charlotte. And when you say "bully" you mean Helen but don't know who else you mean, the only other controversial winner maybe Jim.

Paddy was fairly OK giving circumstances and Denise was just a drunken mess. But apart from that, I don't know how it's any worse than C4 when you consider:

Cameron was controversial in his views
Anthony at times was seen as controversial in things he said about people
Josie who was often called a bully for her treatment of Caoimhe (sp?).

I don't find anyone on C5 particularly nasty bar Helen. And no one particularly vile bar Cameron on C4.

So that's 1 each.