[Livia]

If they are his views, as twisted and unacceptable as they may seem to some, they are his views and he has a perfect right to express them. Expressing those views tells us all we need to know about that person so I don't think BB was right to eject him. BB have let so much go, so much unacceptable behaviour but they set themselves up as the moral judge any time race or sexuality is discussed.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bananarama

The public don't need to hear anything offensive because BB has the power of editing material out. It should be the duty of the program editors to protect the public and only if housemates complain about offensive statements from a fellow housemate should BB then consider eviction or not.

It's more than likely that lawyers are advising what can be aired. Like I said above if they chose not to air any of it then lawyers would not need to be involved.

If the comments were as they were reported why the hell would lawyers being involved?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

If they are his views, as twisted and unacceptable as they may seem to some, they are his views and he has a perfect right to express them. Expressing those views tells us all we need to know about that person so I don't think BB was right to eject him. BB have let so much go, so much unacceptable behaviour but they set themselves up as the moral judge any time race or sexuality is discussed.

Really well said, that is a very fair view to take.
I agree with every word of that.

I'd rather see people as they really are,also how and what they think,over the acting and indeed overacting at times we have to judge them on, which is often very false as to how they really are.

Whether that leaves us to end up liking them or disliking them, that is how it should be.

[MrWong]

Originally Posted by alex_front2

The bigger issue is tptb censoring the controversy and only revealing a previous warning had been issued over something else. Had Biggins not made the HIV+AIDS comments then we would be oblivious to the anti semetic joke.

This is my issue with it all.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Really well said, that is a very fair view to take.
I agree with every word of that.

I'd rather see people as they really are,also how and what they think,over the acting and indeed overacting at times we have to judge them on, which is often very false as to how they really are.

Whether that leaves us to end up liking them or disliking them, that is how it should be.

Exactly

Surely it is the viewers decision on whether he stays or goes.If the voting public don't like his opinions then it is their job to get him out.
Alot of people will be hiding their real thoughts so as not to face ejection.

[hot2go]

How people have categorised this situation is almost as bad as what Biggins did... The joke about Jews was a joke ... In fact it was a joke about the holocaust so it's actually hi lighting how bad Germans were not Jews... but either way it was a joke no different to jokes made by Joan Rivers... Problem is Biggins isn't skilled or talented like she was so it doesn't work.
But in order of importance the ' not joke ' comments he made about bisexuals is far worse and the main and only reason he should have been removed.
It seems that upsetting the Jewish Community is seen as the bigger issue when in fact it's not. We can't upset the Jewish community with a joke but we can upset the Bisexual community with an accusation and apportion sole blame to them for AIDS ?
Biggins had to go.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Exactly

Surely it is the viewers decision on whether he stays or goes.If the voting public don't like his opinions then it is their job to get him out.
Alot of people will be hiding their real thoughts so as not to face ejection.

They for sure do Northern Monkey

[bitontheslide]

big brother is an entertainment show, not a platform for bigots, of course he should have been ejected.

[Garfie]

I posted this elsewhere but the same thing might be relevant to this discussion- The following is from the CPS website, regarding UK laws, and am assuming that some of Biggins' comments may have fallen into this category, which might be the reason for the rumours about a police investigation. It might also explain the reason why BB have not broadcast it, as according to this they could be seen as committing a criminal offence in doing so. I have highlighted the key points in the first paragraph.

The highlighted passage at the bottom explains that, although we are entitled to free speech, the reason why balance is needed when we choose what we say- "we have to balance the rights of the individual to freedom of expression against the duty of the state to ...... protect the rights of others".

I wonder also that, if we are looking at racism as a reason for his removal, it might not just be the comments judged as anti-Semitic (which we haven't actually seen) but also the inference he made that Africans were initially responsible for AIDS?

Just thought it might be of interest, and go some way to addressing some of the confusion about why Biggins comments could have been deemed unacceptable and the reason behind his removal, as well as answering some of the questions raised on here during the discussions on Biggins and free speech.


Incitement to racial hatred

This offence is committed when the accused person says or does something which is threatening, abusive or insulting and, by doing so, either intends to stir up racial hatred, or makes it likely that racial hatred will be stirred up. This can include such things as making a speech, displaying a racist poster, publishing written material, performing a play or broadcasting something in the media.

If we are not able to prove that someone intended to stir up racial hatred, we have to show that, in all the circumstances, hatred was likely to be stirred up. 'Likely' does not mean that racial hatred was simply possible. We therefore have to examine the context of any behaviour very carefully, in particular the likely audience, as this will be highly relevant.

These offences appear in the Public Order Act 1986.
When people hate others because of race, such hatred may become manifest in the commission of crimes motivated by hate, or in abuse, discrimination or prejudice. Such reactions will vary from person to person, but all hatred has a detrimental effect on both individual victims and society, and this is a relevant factor to take into account when considering whether a prosecution is appropriate.

It is essential in a free, democratic and tolerant society that people are able robustly to exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, we have to balance the rights of the individual to freedom of expression against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.[

[Jan S]

big brother's house, big brother's rules

repeated warnings ignored? shown the door. i think it was right, even if their reasoning was fuzzy.

shame they didn't do the same for bear - they shudda drop-kicked him out of the stadium