RD
They can change their own rules as much as they want regarding goings-on inside the house, but this is about ICSTIS's rules on phone voting, and the issue of whether money has been taken from people under false pretences.
Any investigation by ICSTIS would have to consider what viewers were led to reasonably believe when they were invited to vote to evict Grace, Nikki, Jayne, etc.
1. The term "evict" implies permanent removal.
2. There was always a clear impression given to viewers that evictions were permanent, given the fact that in 10 previous series of Big Brother every single evicted housemate lost all claims to the prize money.
3. Channel 4's published rules clearly state:
(here)
and
(here)
In this scenario I don't think for one second that a court of law would regard the statement "Big Brother can change the rules at any time" as a catch-all Get Out Of Jail card. That statement relates to internal gameplay rules within the house; it doesn't allow them to fiddle phone votes where public money is involved. Big Brother is not above the law.
True, the hysterical bleatings on DS are a bit over the top, but this is an important issue for the authorities to deal with, as there are vast amounts of money at stake. The fact that people who vote are perceived as "idiots" is not a justification for ripping them off.
And the production companies are quick to take the moral and legal highground when the tables are turned - Major Charles Ingram, anyone?
The fact that Channel 4 are giving the profit to charity from the "vote to return" already suggests they're feeling jittery about the whole matter. They're certainly not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts; they're doing it as a mitigation plea for any subsequent investigation or court case.
Gavin Scott posted:
The most important rule in the BB book is that they can change the rules as they see fit.
They can change their own rules as much as they want regarding goings-on inside the house, but this is about ICSTIS's rules on phone voting, and the issue of whether money has been taken from people under false pretences.
Any investigation by ICSTIS would have to consider what viewers were led to reasonably believe when they were invited to vote to evict Grace, Nikki, Jayne, etc.
1. The term "evict" implies permanent removal.
2. There was always a clear impression given to viewers that evictions were permanent, given the fact that in 10 previous series of Big Brother every single evicted housemate lost all claims to the prize money.
3. Channel 4's published rules clearly state:
Quote:
The housemate that receives most public votes leaves the House and is out of the competition.
and
Quote:
Once a housemate leaves they forfeit any claim to the prize money.
In this scenario I don't think for one second that a court of law would regard the statement "Big Brother can change the rules at any time" as a catch-all Get Out Of Jail card. That statement relates to internal gameplay rules within the house; it doesn't allow them to fiddle phone votes where public money is involved. Big Brother is not above the law.
True, the hysterical bleatings on DS are a bit over the top, but this is an important issue for the authorities to deal with, as there are vast amounts of money at stake. The fact that people who vote are perceived as "idiots" is not a justification for ripping them off.
And the production companies are quick to take the moral and legal highground when the tables are turned - Major Charles Ingram, anyone?
The fact that Channel 4 are giving the profit to charity from the "vote to return" already suggests they're feeling jittery about the whole matter. They're certainly not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts; they're doing it as a mitigation plea for any subsequent investigation or court case.