[Robodog]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The general public, and channel sponsors dictate what is considered acceptable. I have no doubt they were aiming to create some controversy, but there is a fine line between controversial and unacceptable, and clearly the UK public and channel sponsors made their views clear, forcing BB into the action it took.

It's really not that simple. We are ALL the general public and we all have different views on what is acceptable. There was no great board meeting where members of the public met with Channel 5 bosses and made the decision together. I too am 'the general public' and i never made my views clear because - like the rest of us - i never even heard about Tila's views until she was removed.

It's more likely a dirt digging media source that bought it to Channel 5's attention and they decided to remove her in case it all kicked off.

Either that or like you say, CH5 deliberately let the controversy occur over this by letting her in first, knowing they were going to remove her later.

Fact is - we STILL don't know EXACTLY what subjects are off limits in BB's eyes, going forward from this point.

Is it just the subject of Hitler that HMs can be removed over? Or are there other subjects BB won't tolerate? Will BB tell us first what they are or will they repeat this shambles and have other future HMs enter the house only to be suddenly removed once their previous offensive online postings have been unearthed?

BB has a duty to be clear about this.

[bitontheslide]

It is actually that simple. It doesn't matter if Tila's ejection seems unfair to some, it doesn't matter if she was ejected for something said in whatever circumstances 2 years ago. BB doesn't need to provide any details. If people don't like it, they shouldn't watch the show.

It is a simple fact that if a sufficient number of Viacom sponsors threatened to withdraw their funding, the channel would have no choice but to comply or cease operation. If sufficient public protest groups lend their weight to a cause, it will be followed by the channel.

These things happen irrespective of implied BB rules or expected behaviour. I'm struggling that this concept is so hard for those complaining to understand.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

It is actually that simple. It doesn't matter if Tila's ejection seems unfair to some, it doesn't matter if she was ejected for something said in whatever circumstances 2 years ago. BB doesn't need to provide any details. If people don't like it, they shouldn't watch the show.

It is a simple fact that if a sufficient number of Viacom sponsors threatened to withdraw their funding, the channel would have no choice but to comply or cease operation. If sufficient public protest groups lend their weight to a cause, it will be followed by the channel.

These things happen irrespective of implied BB rules or expected behaviour. I'm struggling that this concept is so hard for those complaining to understand.

i'm a Viacom supporter(because i watch plenty of Viacom/CBS shows), so i get to have an opinion about it, and i get to disagree if i want to.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Cherie

It confirms that you need to be careful about what you put out on social media, an attempt to be edgy, or controversial can come back and bite you on the bum many years later. Take note!

Yes photo of her with Nazi clothes
freak

[lostalex]

Bow down before the one you serve, you're going to get what you deserve.

Youtube video

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes photo of her with Nazi clothes
freak

For the last time, the picture is fake.

[Robodog]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

It is actually that simple. It doesn't matter if Tila's ejection seems unfair to some, it doesn't matter if she was ejected for something said in whatever circumstances 2 years ago. BB doesn't need to provide any details. If people don't like it, they shouldn't watch the show.

It is a simple fact that if a sufficient number of Viacom sponsors threatened to withdraw their funding, the channel would have no choice but to comply or cease operation. If sufficient public protest groups lend their weight to a cause, it will be followed by the channel.

These things happen irrespective of implied BB rules or expected behaviour. I'm struggling that this concept is so hard for those complaining to understand.

Ooh get you!

It's not 'a simple fact' that a number of viacom sponsors threatened to withdraw their funding over this. I've never heard of that, nor has anyone else i've asked. No need to be patronising about it whether it's common knowledge or not.

Anyway, there are STILL unclear guidelines from BB as to what HMs can or cannot say in the future outside the BB house, so how do we go forward from this without repeating history unless BB spells it out clearly first on ALL 'off limits' subjects?

BB has a duty to be clear about it's guidelines for HMs opinions, not just INSIDE but also now OUTSIDE the house. Surely people asking for BB's clarity on that important subject is not a concept you are struggling to understand as well?

[bitontheslide]

BB can't have rules and regulations available for every eventuality, and sometimes events outside the house will dictate what happens (irrespective of any rules implied or otherwise) Its a TV program, nothing more, nothing less. No free speech has been denied, the person is still more than capable of saying whatever they want to. It was just deemed on this occasion, that she was not appropriate for the TV show.

[Robodog]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

BB can't have rules and regulations available for every eventuality, and sometimes events outside the house will dictate what happens (irrespective of any rules implied or otherwise) Its a TV program, nothing more, nothing less. No free speech has been denied, the person is still more than capable of saying whatever they want to. It was just deemed on this occasion, that she was not appropriate for the TV show.

I get all that of course. I'm just concerned for it happening again unless there is clarity on the subjects BB finds it acceptable for future HMs to discuss outside the house. I don't know if this is just a one-off, exclusive to Tila and comments about Hitler, or if it now means we are in a new era of BB whereby ANY HM can be removed if they have made previous comments that causes offence to anyone- about ANY subject that could be seen as offensive to someone, whether it's about Hitler or not.

I appreciate your or any forum members view on the subject but i really think BB needs to be clear about this now or future HMs are left in a pretty precarious position.

[bitontheslide]

Well, who knows, but money and popularity will always be the main drivers in a commercial venture.

Thing is, BB has never been promoted as a platform for free speech, putting across particular viewpoints whether they be political, religious or anything else. Some cast members may have tried to make it that platform, but its never been its main focus. Its always been about the interaction of the specific group of housemates in a particular season.

One thing BB has never been far from is controversy, and if they sanitise it to the point where it is safe for everyone's viewing pleasure, it will lose much of its inherent appeal. However, when they pick controversial characters, there will always be the risk that they go beyond the bounds of public/sponsor acceptability, its a fine line, so it could happen at any time.

[wendywillow]

so she gets kicked out in case someone goes back and reads something she wrote 2 years ago and gets offended? would anyone really care? who reads tilas blog in the first place? shes not running for public office...she was on a silly tv show where people dress in costumes.

[Erik B]

Being punished for a stupid comment made long before the show aired and NOT during the show takes political correctness to a scary level. She didn't commit a crime in her country with her opinions and though stupid, I still defend her rights to make those stupid comments.
The irony is that this looks like a Gestapo tactic although BB may have good intentions. If it was due to concerns of loosing advertising revenue it would be far worse.
In any case I have stopped watching BB as of the third episode.