There's no BB rule against swearing.

But those things aren't likely to cause offence.

There's some discussion of that in the current thread about words and deeds.

I can't imagine it's legal to not pay him at least part of his fee. He has worked for them for a week and fulfilled his role.

Actually, the season that Frankie was on had all kinds of homophobic, racist and sexist remarks and bullying that outraged Live feed viewers all series long. CBS just kind of ignored it and never broadcasted or addressed on the shows and played it off as freedom of speech/ sometimes the human experience can be nasty.

They aren't expected "to be spouting some sanitised, innocuous conversations all the time".

Indeed Ofcom has said:

"It is recognised that Big Brother is the type of programme in which controversial matters will inevitably be raised and emotional and offensive exchanges occur, as the characters of the participants are revealed. Given this, what is broadcast may contain language and behaviour which is capable of causing offence to viewers."

(From the judgement re CBB5.)

And it's not about what might "be offensive to some". It's about generally accepted standards and takes into account "changing times and circumstances" and "among other factors, the broadcast programme, the service it is broadcast on, and the likely expectations of the audience for any particular broadcast service or programme. Therefore, what may be generally accepted standards for the audience of Big Brother may not be standards which would necessarily be generally accepted for other programme services where the likely audiences may have entirely different expectations."

Surely that depends on the contract. CBB HMs certainly behave as if they won't be paid if they walk out.

It's entirely possible Biggins left because his contract and fee was for a week, and big brother are getting the maximum leverage from it.

Walking out would be breaking their contract. Besides which, they probably still get paid for the time they were in. Just not the full amount.

I'm not so sure - removed HMs could be considered not to meet their contractual obligations if they continue to break the rules despite warnings. Just like.a "normal" job, if you break the rules & management follow disciplinary procedures, you can be sacked.

That's about what is broadcast anyway, not what is said inside the house.

Not without pay for the work already done.

Are you sure? I was shocked they kept him in the house after that, especially after he told them he was going to smash up the Diary Room if they didn't comply with his wishes ie. threatening BB with violence.

Agreed he would have to be paid a percentage but as he went up for eviction, received no norms and was bookies favourite, it could be reasonably argued that he would have stayed until the final week had the incident(s) not occurred.

Absolutely. The offensive language usually refers to sexual swear words, not hate speech. Ken Morley was removed for the same reason as Biggins. I'm astonished that so many on here think Ch5 would be seen to endorse racism or anti-semitism. They have lawyers; they know what can and can't be shown to the nation in the name of entertainment.

It does happen but not in this case.
I doubt Biggins would want bad press.

...

Er...no, it's not entirely possible at all. Biggins would be suing them and winning millions in damages for libel and defamation.

So?

Sorry, but I can't tell what point you're using that to make. It doesn't mean that HMs are expected "to be spouting some sanitised, innocuous conversations all the time".

And the things that are broadcast include things said inside the house. Are you thinking BB expects them to stick to "sanitised, innocuous conversations" in the parts that aren't broadcast, but not in the parts that are?

I think that's extremely unlikely. In what way have C5 or BB libelled or defamed him?

It's like their dramatic warnings are quite simply advertisements for anyone who wants to watch offensive material.
You can't eject somebody because some fragile person decided to continue to watch and ignore the warnings.
BB need to grow a pair and and not submit to people who complain about being offended, or even worse submit to their own fear by predicting a situation where they think somebody MIGHT be offended.

What on earth are the warnings for if they do everything that can to ensure that nobody is offended in the actual complete programme? It makes no sense at all.
Unexpected offensive material doesn't suddenly find itself in the final programme by accident where editing has been fully completed and is already being broadcast. There's nothing in it that they didn't already choose to put in. There is no such thing as people who hack the broadcast transmission and put things in there which BB wouldn't know about.

If they warn me that there is definitely going to be offensive language by Biggins, Bear, or anybody else, okay thanks for the warning. If I think I can handle it then I can make the choice whether I decide to watch it or not. I appreciate the warning and I reckon I'll be safe and will handle it okay. I don't appreciate them offering a warning for me to make my own choice but then tell me what is too offensive for me.

Do you think that breaking the rules to the point that they're thrown out isn't breaking the contract? Or isn't covered by the contract? Why?

No HM has ever been ejected because "some fragile person decided to continue to watch and ignore the warnings."

And BB has to follow the Ofcom rules that are a condition of C5's broadcasting licence. It's not about submitting to people who complain. Indeed, Ofcom disagrees with the great majority of the complaints.


The warnings are part of establishing a context that allows them to broadcast potentially offensive things.

I'm inclined to agree that BB has taken to making a big deal of the warnings so that they've become something like advertising or "clickbait", but that doesn't mean the warnings serve no other purpose.


How are they telling you what is too offensive for you? C5 has to respect "generally accepted standards" as interpreted by Ofcom. It's a condition of C5's broadcasting licence.

I wish this stupid phrase 'hate speech' was just put to bed. Since that term was introduced it appears to have created more problems than it has solved.
Crimes already existed. It has been no help to lump all sorts of things into a broad category of hate speech.

Now we have people saying that Biggins has been guilty of hate speech, which is seen as a crime.
Hate speech as I understood it was supposed to deal with people who incited others to commit acts of violence against certain minority groups.
As far as we are aware of at the moment Biggins has only been guilty of mild bigotry where his beliefs may be ignorant or misguided at worst.

In about 5 years time is it going to be a crime if you're deemed to not be a nice person on the basis that your opinions don't accord with most other people's?.

Pretty sure, yes. Is there any reason to think viewers are offended by something like a mirror being smashed?

Ejections aren't only about causing offence, btw. The BB rules list plenty of other things under "unacceptable behaviour".

(How is threatening a room threatening BB?)

It's not redundant when BB does show it, though. I'm not sure quite what you're wanting here. Should BB keep everything hidden? Throw HMs out without showing us why? Keep them in no matter what?


Well, the BB rules re unacceptable behaviour include: "Behaving in a way that could cause serious offence to either their fellow Housemates or members of the viewing public (including serious offence based on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs or sexual orientation)."

That's a matter of interpretation, especially since it includes "serious" and "could". So naturally people won't all always agree with BB's interpretation.

I think BB has been inconsistent at times, but I also think that many of the accusations of inconsistency are mistaken, and some are based on very dubious reasoning. (For example if BB warns a HM and describes something the HM did as "aggressive", the idea seems to appear that anything that can be described as "aggressive" should be treated in the same way. I call this the "same label, same thing" fallacy.)

Recently some people were saying Marnie should be thrown out because Aaron had been thrown out in bb16, as if there couldn't be any relevant differences between those two cases. That's a "similar = same" fallacy.