agreed, conspiracy theories are an easy cop-out when you can't work out the reasoning behind something, there's no easy way to explain why the right person (in my opinion) wasn't evicted, could be the editing or just personal taste, but i'm 100% sure that it wasn't rigged, come on, look at our newspapers, they're always sniffing round for any kind of scandal - no-one in this country would have the bottle to rip the public off so openly...

I didn't Poo Poo

Or is it just a Welsh thing?

Si!

Allrightmate I think your link to your previous post regrarding the rules makes interesting reading and gives BB a way out.

Any journalist will tell you that the key to a good story is "why?".
That is why there are no stories of fixing BB in the tabloids, because there is no reason why Endemol would want Cam to win.
There is no fix. There is a popular favourite to win BB who is disliked by a fringe minority who hang around in this forum.

I stand corrected.

Go Welshkid

This is what I said:
Vote rigging is fraud and misrepresentation - irrespective of the Ts & Cs - against those voting not the HMs and is very much a criminal act. Clear definition that ts and cs are those pertaining to voting...so yep I read them.....

Well, I'm a journalist (but not of the tabloid variety) the why factor is immense.

Furthermore, someone I contacted at the Mirror over the bias and voting 'peculiarities' which emerged the day after Cameron beat Jon said they agreed with virtually everyything I'd said.

People <i>are</i> aware things have been different this year, including a heightened sense of desepration at times within the BB4 team. It's down to whether or not people can be arsed to invesitigate. It may never happen if the plug is pulled on a BB5.

And there may be serious consequences for endemol if anything is proved. Contracts between endemol and HMs mean nothng in this respect. Endemol will up against real law and commercial ethics!

I don't agree that there is no reason why
Endemol might prefer one housemate to win over another. Isn't it in their interest to have a winner who has an image that will attract a lot of press coverage, who is enthusiastic about their time in the house and keen to keep a high public profile in order to keep the product strong?

[SIZE=72]Lies[/SIZE]

Yes, maybe I was wrong to use the exact wording of vote rigging,..but what I meant is that cetain things may be done that would influence the final vote,.whether that would be done purposely is something that I don't know if it could be possible to prove.

So what legal basis do the terms and conditions hold if they publish them on their website?....None at all?....Are they meaningless?

Thanks.

But Capt_Canary pointed out to me that the terms and conditions have no legal basis.

I suppose what is important,..is whether CH4 have the approriate legal documents that reflect and back up what they say in their T&Cs.....if the T&Cs on their site are not relevant in themselves.

I still have a big question hovering over what they describe as fraudulent mass voting

How would you do that?

Because that's where they would reset votes or cancel them,..and according to CH4, that's a subjective decision that they decide upon....sometimes they would,...sometimes they wouldn't.

That's one of the methods in which the result of the votes can be influenced.,....and if they can legally do that, then it wouldn't be classed as rigging the vote,.....would it?

My final post on the subject

The Ts & Cs of the voting represents the basis of the offer C4 is prepared to enter in to which the public accepts by actually voting. Something known as 'consideration' is necessary to formalise a contract - in this case C4 counting an individuals vote and the voter actually casting his vote and paying the cost. All perfectly fair. By implication of casting his vote, the voter has accepted the contract under the terms offered by C4. As with any poll, the organiser will retain the right to disqualify fraudulent voting, which as I said, are terms the voter has accepted. What is rather surprising is that there is no definition of what constitues 'fraudulent voting' or the process by which these votes will be disqualifed - I would assume this is the role of the adjudicator but it doesn'timplicitly actually say this. The rule that would be applied is 'whether disqualifying votes/blocks of votes' was reasonale'. C4 is doing themselves no favours without defining the process etc but this certainly doesn't mean it is acting recklessly or negligently let alone deliberately misrepresenting the results of voting.

The contract is binding (ie enforceable) as long as all parties have fulfilled their responsibilities of the contract - ie someone votes (paying for it) and then that vote is counted. However, if the contract is contrary to common or criminal law, it as a whole or in part (the contrary part) is unenforecable and would be what is known as 'set aside'.

Thus, if C4 is deliberately and unreasonably fixing the vote, the contract is unenforceable as this is a criminal offence which 1)gives rise to the voter to seek repayment of the cost of calls made (contract law) 2) may lead to a criminal prosecution foor Criminal Misrepresentation, and possibly, obtaining monies by decception. If found guilty, this would be sufficient grounds for the Gov't to revoke C4's broadcasting licence.

Consequently, I think it is extremely unlikely C4 would resort to vote rigging/fixing. Naturally, with all electronic voting C4 will be allowed a margin of error (which is the adjudicator's role to assess and monitor this) and the public has to accept that even now 100% of all calls are not connected even when dialling phone to phone ie some calls will be 'abandoned' and will not therefore count.

Sorry for the long answer but you did ask

Just as a matter of interest Capt Canary, for example if the producers choose to show only the good sides of a housemate and leave the bad side of that housemate out.
And with another housemate they only show the bad side of his character would that not influence the vote and one could say the voting has been rigged.

No don't apologise Capt_Canary,..I appreciate that your post is long.

What you are actually saying goes along with what my thoughts were.

It is very difficult to prove that any influencing of the voting outcome occurs.
Especially if the online voter agrees to the terms given.


Whether or not it is unlikely for any influence on the final outcome of the voting is not for me to say.

But according to their terms and conditions it appears that they have ways to do so, if they wished to.

There are a few things in their T&Cs which are ambiguous,...the right to reset votes at any time is another one.

Legally they may not be liable,.....but they could knowingly, or unknowingly, affect the result,........proving unfairness looks to be incredibly difficult.

I have thought the same thing as you for a while.

But their answer might be that they have provided access to E4 where a fuller picture of events have been shown,...and that they have advertised the 24 hour service on many occasions, telling the viewer that if they want more information as to what the HMs say, and get up to,....they have made that service available.

I know,...the whole thing stinks,....but they probably know what they are doing, and have probably made every effort to ensure that they don't get into trouble.

Unfortunately not as C4 can choose to edit their programmes as they see fit as long as they abiding by their Charter/Licence. There is no contractual responsibility upon C4 to do otherwise as there is no contract pertaining to this.

What is good or bad is too open to conjecture to be legally defining as it depends on interpretation which is the result of an individual's own sensibilities, which clearly C4 does not control.

Vote 'rigging' can only arise where C4 has deliberately or negligently misrepresented the result of people calling/texting etc. A vote can not be said to be 'rigged' where the public has free choice as to their vote (ie who they want to vote for, irrespective of any editorial bias) and such votes are countered or fall with the accepted margin of error (ie an abandoned call etc). As I said earlier , what represents 'fraudulent activity' has not be defined - I would suggest that C4 has taken some bad legal advice here, other than if it has been agreed with the adjudicator it would not define such activity for fear it might encourage more of it....some of which may not be identified. If, however, this was the case, I would expect C4 to make this known as part of the Ts & Cs.

the reverse should be true next week.......... ray to walk it?

right to reset votes at any time

This undoubtedly is related to the fradulent voting term ie if a HM has been subject of such activity that C4 can at their discretion reset his/her vote..this doesn't actually mean it will necessarily be back to zero but to the state prior to the discovery of the fraud.

Sorry if I appear pedantic, but I think a lot of you are missing the point. They have shown bias by not broadcasting a quite remarkable switch in Cameron's behaviour, after he had been consistently portrayed as a paragon of all virtues, when he said what he did about things he'd like to do to Jon.

That would be similar (even though his tirade wasn't anywhere near as intense) as Ray ranting against Steph. If we only saw Ray <i>minus</i> rants that would also indicate a clear bias. But bias doesn't matter, legally. That is their prerogative. They're not sworn to show an equal amount of HM coverage like stations have to do when covering political elections. They can show what they want, and excuse themselves on grounds of total bias by saying e4 or live feeds reflected the whole picture. As is excusing themselves of any technical grounds which might affect voting in certain instances.

But, if someone had evidence that someone had intentionally affected the voting process itself once it was in operation, either blocking votes on lines or closing lines at different times, then that would constitute deception, because it would be taking money off people in an unfair manner.

And considering the sums involved it would be a Very Serious Offence Indeed. Massive fine, and even prison, considering millions of pounds would be involved over the series overall.

Most of my friends work in media, and have done so since the 80's, and know the likelihood of 'honesty' within certain business situations. I have to yet to meet a single person who doesn't think bb4 differs to the previous series and that manipulation has been rife. And if manipulation in coverage is endemic, then why should how voting is controlled (as opposed to set up) be any different?

When doubts first emerged about how well the series was doing, and more adverse criticism tappeared han they had faced before, they would have to do something to ensure they would get future series going to mine the goldmine further.

So let's see - how <i>else</i> can they achieve what they want?

Forget the old Jon debate, or the Cameron situation, simply contrast and compare bb4 to its predecessors.

It's a whole new ballgame, and under FA rules it would have been abandoned.

If they did get charged they would probably get the money back through publicity, anyway.