I'm finding it hard to work out what you think is a problem.

I don't know where "many" comes from. I thought BB listed the offences when they told Biggins in the DR that he was being removed. And what would the waiting be, if they warned him each time? If you mean why didn't BB throw him out the 1st time, then the answer must be that BB didn't think that what he said then was so bad that he had to be thrown out then rather than given a warning.

Think it might be the unthinkable re Heavy voting for him, when Bear thought he wouldn't have done. By saying that to Heavy he was making sure Heavy would feel bad. Bear's probably saying same to the HMs who did Vote for him, making them all feel bad as well. Bear then thinks, job done, and then gets on with his life in the BB House as if it was a breeze.

I don't understand why you think it matters that it's a conspiracy theory. That doesn't stop it from being offensive.

Re being consistent, I agree of course that they should be; but I also think that people are often wrong when they think BB is being inconsistent.

From what was edited tonight I think it was ludicrous if that was the reason Biggins was removed.

Channel 5 is pathetic.

You cannot remove people for having opinions. Other Celebs are never going to do this show because if they say one thing you're booted out.

That's exactly what I'm saying...1st warning would have been enough, but it wasn't, as BB listed another issue, so that makes it 2, and it seems he got many more..so what were they? Will listen again to the clip tomorrow, ok

They should air all the comments he made and the warnings.

Its without live feed the producers can manipulate the HL show.

Biggins did make a Nazi joke apparently on Monday. Which should have aired.

Oh I think you can boot people for opinions they hold, as some can be offensive. The Katie one would be deemed more offensive, if Biggins had said something about that time in the past.

But why do you think he had "many" more?

Anyway, it is possible to have quite a few rule-breaks before being thrown out, as happened with Kitten in bb5.

That would have been very offensve to a lot of people, but they wouldn't have shown it, and might not been allowed to. The H/L show has been manipulated for years anyway, so one takes it with a pinch of salt. A HM says something outrageous, and they are out isn't a wonder, as it would be bound to happen. They ought to show it, but Ofcom might have stopped them, or someone else might have done.

Think BB said many, will check later. Kitten was nothing to shout about though, played the fool most of the time

Theories are opinions (offensive, ignorant or distasteful as they may be) that are up for open discussion, ridicule or to prove/disprove.

Opinions spoken as fact (or used to attack someone) are worse - not only are they damaging but they also aren't conducive to human interaction, education or progression.

For example:

(Scenario 1) Bloke in pub: "I think George Bush was behind 9/11"

(Scenario 2) News Headline: "George Bush Behind 9/11" A source says...

The difference is that one is stated as theory, and the other a fact. And the chances are the 'source' in question is that same bloke in the pub...but nobody is taking HIM seriously when he's just wittering about it over his third pint.

It doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing who was behind 9/11 though, does it? People should always ask questions and have healthy debate...it's how we learn and progress.

Agreed.

But the world isn't free as it used to be.

Freedom of thought is available to everyone. It's then a choice whether to debate or allow ignorance and misinformation to flourish.

It was Biggins freedom of thought which got him booted, and rightly so in this case. If BB showed the clip of him and his joke, it would cause even more offence. People aren't so ignorant as not to know what happened during WW2!

I think we're talking about two different things. I was only referring to his conspiracy theory on AIDS as that was all I saw on the broadcast. The Nazi joke he made I don't know in any detail of so I can't really comment. By all accounts, the topic was in very poor taste but reports say he apologised to Katie and it was forgotten so I imagine he learnt his lesson.

In any case, he has a right to his opinion on the origination of AIDS and his thoughts on sexuality and we all have a right to debate them - it's just a shame there wasn't an intellectual equal there to offer a counter-argument. Shutting down discussion just feeds ignorance and causes division.