Ch4: something good something BAD

Can’t see this anywhere so...

A: ch4 has been fined £50'000 because of misleading public about letting ex consistent back in the big bother house
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5410052.stm

B: ch4 have given Charlotte church 2 more series of here chat show.

I’m not surprised at both pieces of news

A) If people spent good money to vote a particular housemate out, who was forcing them to spend money to vote the same housemate back in? Common sense loses out again.

What I disagreed with was the housemate being voted back in was still eligible to win the show. I think as soon as the public evict a housemate thats it and they shouldnt be allowed to win.

I'm not going to repeat my views on the Big Brother situation. It seems very much a compromise situation - though the judgement seems to be based more on the number of complaints rather than the nature of them. It'll give the Daily Star something to print tomorrow anyhow!


What is scandalous is the so-called "admin fee" which they have to pay. I don't see how they can say it costs them £15 to process every complaint, especially nowadays when many are made via e-mail!

ICSTIS picked this point up, if you read the actual decision published:
http://www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs_news/PressRelease_bigbro.pdf

Their decision was that it said on Channel 4's website that once a housemate has been evicted, they forfeit all right to the prize money. Therefore changing editorial direction in the way they did without changing the T&C's on the website meant it was in breach.

What this basically could do is open the floodgates for similiar scenarios next time round, because according to the ASA now, all you need to do is change the publically available T&Cs on the (in this case) official Big Brother website before doing whatever and it gives you carte blanche to do what you like.

The T&Cs also clearly state that "Big Brother Can Change the Rules at anytime" - though it was always going to be more difficult for them to apply this to the voting public rather than just the housemates.


I have to say though that without the Daily Star biting the hand that feeds them this summer I doubt there would have been nearly as many complaints!

Now, who do I complaint to about the Daily Star claiming it's a "newspaper"!

It's a complete non-punishment, makes you wonder why they bothered really.

It's not even C4 who have to stump up the cash, it's the two premium rate service providers.

To me, if one is so worried about the money that they used to vote, why would they vote in the first place?

After all, I think I read somewhere (maybe 'Wikipedia'), all of the profits from the vote-back went to charity. I understand that the issue was that people were upset that they had voted someone to be forfeited (sp.?) the chance to win. Though the trailers said:

"To *EVICT* . . .";

and that is just what they did. They were evicted. - they were just let in again. Also someone said that c4 could change the rules whenever they liked.

Anyway, my brainwashed-in* sympathetic views for C.4. there !

*watched too much of the channel in the last year.

... so say the rules. I'm a fan of the show, and it was a fairly exciting "twist", but definitely unfair to the people who spent money throwing people out.

Does any one else hate the daily star adverts as much as I do I mean




Annoys me so much and the paper is sphite

Well if they can change the rules any time they want, whats the point in them having rules at all?

I dont care about spending money to vote someone out who is then put back in (I didnt even vote Nikki out or back in anyway) but when someone is evicted I think they shouldnt be eligible to win the prize money.

Not like Channel 4 would have let Nikki or indeed any of her fellow ex housemates who went back in win - we know who their winner always was