People say 5 try and make results happen but that eviction was to obviously save Bea.

It was so blatant. Feel sorry for Hira, one of the nicest BB contestants ever.

5 have absolutely ramped up the skullduggery but to claim that the rot never set in back on C4 is bogus IMO.

They did their fair share of shit too - that's where this lot got their ideas from and isn't it still produced by exactly the same company as it ever was, ie Endemol?

She was a horrible cow...........all that fake crying without the tears *shudder*

Perhaps. And while I think the edit favored him, I don't know why people couldn't see right through that. I thought he was awful. From start to finish. There was nothing in the "edit" that could ever have make me vote for him.

I weep for the people who did.

While everything that would put people off voting for him ended up on the cutting room floor. Terrible season of BB with a deliberate bias for a HM to support their cross promotion Ex on the Beach.

How can you possibly say that though? Even though he got the biggest share of screen time, he wasn't edited favourably! He was shown to be himself - annoying, childish, attention seeking and at one time or another, intensely disliked by everybody in the house!

I know they didn't show a couple of incidents, but they showed dozens more - enough for almost everyone on here to decide that they didn't like him and would never vote for him. It is a fallacy that he wouldn't have won if only they'd shown him squirt some water in Sam Fox's eye. If you think that would have altered the view of the average person who would vote for Bear, then you need to have a re-think.

Well exactly. He was shown exactly as he is.

Some people appreciated him, others didn't. Enough people appreciated him to make him win. They didn't vote for 'nice' Bear who had been made to look nice by the edit, they voted for WUM Bear - who had been represented accurately.

Isn't the point more that he was less likely to have won if they had shown the others more?

I think you're looking at it bass ackwards. There was enough for people to decide whether they liked him or not but not enough for people to decide on any of the other HMs. They then ensured the anti-Bear vote was always split.

The complaint about the edit, for many I think, isn't that it showed him favourably. It's that it meant we didn't get a feel for any of the others.

It was so blatant and how many final warnings did he get? What they did show aggression and wilful property damage would have saw anyone else kicked out. What wasn't shown has come to light from HM's as they have come out. Sam suffered an eye injury from a careless prank, that wasn't shown. And Rene has made claims that if true would have saw anyone else kicked out. Describing Bear as violent offensive towards the older women HM's and said he kicked Frankie in the balls.

Bear was built up as C5's winner because of a cross promotion as Bear is also on Ex on the Beach. This series is the worst BBUK in history and a lot of people switched off towards the end the bias was so obvious.

Yes it's all Endemol.

Hence why Italian BB has made similar mistakes that annoyed Italian BB viewers. That is even worse. Week by week the producers used to say 'so and so are immune just because we say so'. There used to be a series (maybe a couple on italian bb) where 6 were immune each week.
2 chosen from producers/BB
2 from the favourite of the public (voted fave by poll)
2 from the public

That was a way of getting of the deadwood.

I don't disagree with any of what you have said. My post was in response to someone who said that Bear won because his worst moments ended up on the cutting room floor. The reasons you have pointed out are much more likely factors in why he won.

I am already aware of all the things you have said, but I far from agree with you.

We don't know about his warnings, because they weren't shown.

We don't know about the Sam incident, because it wasn't shown.

We don't know about the Frankie incident, because it wasn't shown.

We are taking other HMs' word for it - which is flawed as it may not necessarily have happened exactly as they say - and Bear has no right to reply.

So we - the voters - have to go on what we have seen with our own eyes. That is enough for the majority on here to make an informed decision never to vote for him. But on watching exactly the same programme, some people have decided that he is the guy they want as their winner. They obviously did not feel the same way as you about him, they did not think the same way that you did on the evidence that they have already seen, so why would one more prank (which went wrong) change their minds?

I think that may be the first time, in the history of online bulletin boards, that that sentiment has ever been expressed.

I'm gonna go check out a window -- see if I can't spot the Alpha and Omega.

That is the point it wasn't shown and I think there is truth in what Sam and Rene say. I don't think Sam is lying either, she has said Bear played a prank on her and she had to wear an eye patch for 4 hours. Emma didn't dismiss this in the interview either.

And what we did see Bear was aggressive and disrespectful to women of the house especially the older ones. He also destroyed a mirror in a violent rage any one else would have been thrown out for that alone!

Neither do I think Sam is lying - but we can't take her word as fact. Best stick to what we have actually seen.

And my point is that enough of Bear's bad behaviour was already shown to allow people to make up their own minds. Anyone who had already seen Bear's childish behaviour, his incessant wind-up-merchantry, his aggression, his disrespect etc, etc and STILL voted for him is unlikely to change their mind because he kicked someone in the balls.

Haha

It would have been better to show it to answer Sam's claims and silence the critics. They could of shown the clip on CBOTS. That's what makes me think it was too damaging to their golden boy to show.

I'm in two minds as to why they didn't show it.

On one hand, I don't like to get too caught up in conspiracy theories. They have a show to make, and they want to make it entertaining. Their main interest is conflict, but they also like fun stuff, sexy stuff, controversy, bitching, developing relationships etc. There is a possibility that it caused none of the above. To me it just sounds like Bear was being Bear and Sam was being naive, but after the inevitable conclusion, there was just general concern for Sam and no drama came of it - just her disappearing into the diary room to seek medical attention. Nothing half as entertaining as Renee's meltdowns or Aubrey's character assassination. Just another Bear incident with an unfortunate ending. So no reason to show it other than to make Bear look bad.

Remember that it was part of a half hour HL show before a double eviction, so as well as there being very little time to show it, it would also have ended that part of the show on a downer - just before the eviction. These are all valid reasons for not showing it.

On the other hand, I entirely get the argument that they were trying to protect Bear. But I think that their emphasis would have been on producing a good show, and the time constraints won out in the end. In an hour long show, I think we may well have seen it, as long as it made decent viewing and wasn't just a damp squib.

Do you know, you might just have had a point, had BB not shown, IN FULL, Jayne getting injured in the pool by the sponge Jackson lobbed at her.

Not only was the entire thing shown, including her receiving medical attention - BB also showed the HMs getting updated about how she was doing in hospital.

So they can and do show such things - the only question that remains is why they didn't when Sam got injured?

Isn't it possible that we're right and it wasn't shown because it could have been damaging to Bear's chances?

Or it was nothing like as dramatic as Sam made out. She seems to be the only one who goes on about it.

Oh yes it's possible - I said I entirely get that argument and that I'm not decided.

I didn't watch the BB you're referring to so thanks for that. It reminds me of a previous BB when a girl got injured during a task and was on crutches for the rest of her time in the house. It helps the narrative to show such events as it explains any absence / signs of injury.

I just don't think you always have to jump to the sinister / conspiracy explanation when there are other options - for example I have already put forward the time constraint explanation. I suppose I think that if they had shown it, all the Bear detractors would have been up in arms, and the Bear fans would just have shrugged it off - it would hardly have changed anyone's view.

I don't think this was the worst thing that Bear did in the house - although it did have the most unfortunate conclusion. They did not shy away from showing some of his other awful behaviour and winding the other HMs up to the point of distraction. I totally agree that he was favoured in the share of the airtime he got, but I think we got a pretty good idea of what he was all about - the content of the HL show was never flattering.

She is going on about it because she required medical attention and when she raised it with Emma was surprised that it wasn't shown. Given that she required medical intervention and had to wear an eyepatch for 4 hours she rightly didn't just dismiss it!

For me it sounds very much like a cover up as they didn't even show Sam walking around the house with an eyepatch. No it would have damaged Bears chances and they covered it up!

It could all have been resolved by the footage being shown, if not on the show on BOTS, they had the opportunity.

I fully believe that for sure in the celeb series just gone they did pretty much all they could to "fix" the vote without actually tampering the votes. I don't think they'd actually tamper the votes, so I wouldn't necessarily say fix, rather manipulation. They did all they could by showing Bear all the time, making the series all about him. Even when the others had airtime, it was either about him or it would be interrupted by him.

Voting fixed......No

Daft folk manipulated......Yes

Oh? Lots of people thought it was to save Lisa. Otherwise, it would have been vote to evict (they said).

I can see an argument that it was to save Bea, since she and Marcus had the most nominations that week -- but why would BB want to save Bea in particular? BB didn't indulge in mechanism gymnastics the week after, when Freddie went; or the next week, when it was Bea; or the week after that, when Marcus went. Why would BB go do such lengths to save Bea in week 9, but not (it seems) care at all about keeping Freddie, Bea, or Marcus after that?

I think a more likely explanation is that BB thought of trying an "everyone up" punishment, but then thought (perhaps having learned from bb7), "what if a big character goes?" and so decided to make it vote-to-save. Then it wouldn't be to save any big character in particular.