Originally Posted by Veri:
“I think that's extremely unlikely. In what way have C5 or BB libelled or defamed him?”
Originally Posted by Veri:
“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?”
Originally Posted by Veri:
“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.”
Originally Posted by Veri:
“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?)”
Originally Posted by Veri:
“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.”
Blimey, who are you? Big Brothers lawyer?
