Ive just been watching the Live feeds on E4 this evening and i have noticed something.

While Alex was talking to Sandy about Jonny they mentioned nominations and it was obvious that Alex is going to nominate Jonny. Is this not against Big Brother rules and why is he getting away with it. Especially earlier on Kate and Alison were given into trouble for talking about nominations.

Well Kate and Alison don't appear to have had a 'strike' against them, and nor do PJ, Jonny or Lee. Adele and Jade have.

I'm confused here, one rule for some another for others?

Maybe they get reminded of the rules, and then get a verbal warning if they still break it?

Dont think Adele & Jade actually got strikes did they? thought they just got a telling off.

Adele and Jade have a strike against them? For what?

Maybe I was wrong, but I had thought last night that they said they got strikes. The article seems to say different though...

Channel 4 news article here.

Your right, they both have had warnings put on their names for talking about nominations.

And Yes your right, I believe this is all about who Big brother wants to win, and not about who should win.

At least five of them have had warnings - Jade, Adele, Kate, Alison and Spencer (more may not be admitting to it). Nobody has a strike against them yet. I don't see how this fits with a theory about Big Brother trying to manipulate who the winner should be.

I think that according to how the producers and psychologists think housemates will react and interact and how they will come across to the viewers, they, ie C4, must have an idea from the outset who has a chance, and who the no hopers are. Altho' they clearly would never own up to this level of manipulation, because it LOOKS as if ppl are in control of their own destinies in the house. But if u put a cat amongst the pigeons, the outcome is pretty obvious, and humans are sufficiently predictable to be able to work out at least a rough game plan for the series. Sophie will have been very very carefully selected. They have picked a baba, at least one potential leader or two, a few sex fanatics, a number of followers, some thinkers, some dreamers, some jokers. I wonder how far their plan has worked so far?

I suspect where the plan starts to break down is when they have made a mistake about character - when ppl start behaving unpredictably based on their video and interviews... when the fictional Sunita started behaving like the real Sunita for example!? I think Sandy has also proven NOT to be the character they expected, and his designer role has started to unravel very quickly.

you can see how it works tho,
because as it was stated before, big brother are allowing other to get away with breaking the rules, whilst letting others get strikes.

Which is seemingly unfair, due to the fact that if you get 2 strikes then your out.

Personally I would love to see all of them out and replaced with a whole bunch of new people, who are prepared for what lays in touch for each of them, instead of these whining and moaning lot.

hopefully Sophie will bring stability

I thought it was 3 strikes and then u are out?

I repeat. None of them have strikes yet....only warnings. So it isn't an issue.

3 strikes and your out, not 2

[quote]Originally posted by Brownie


3 strikes and your out, not 2 [/QUOTE

sorry typo!

I'm confused about this, it could just be the way it's been written about but I thought the 3 strikes system worked like this:

1 - verbal warning
2 - written warning
3 - out.

So if they've received warnings, yet not strikes, what's going on? Is BB being a hungry labrador rather than a rottweiller, and giving them friendly warnings first?

You are more or less correct. However, No.1 should be "formal warning". All they have had so far are informal warnings. So definitely more poodle than rottweiller.