OFCOM rules of voting here

[Yaki da]

Broadcast competitions and voting

2.13 Broadcast competitions and voting must be conducted fairly.

2.14 Broadcasters must ensure that viewers and listeners are not materially misled about any broadcast competition or voting.

2.15 Broadcasters must draw up rules for a broadcast competition or vote. These rules must be clear and appropriately made known. In particular, significant conditions that may affect a viewer's or listener's decision to participate must be stated at the time an invitation to participate is broadcast.


http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/legacy/broadcast-code-september-2010/harmoffence/

They are clearly in breach of 2.15 as they did not make the rules of the vote clear at "the time an invitation to participate is broadcast". On the contrary, it is now 19: 45 pm and we still do not know what we are voting for exactly. Channel 5 have supposedly confirmed to fan sites that the bottom 2 will face a challenge but there is no mention on their website and there was no mention of this at the end of last night's show when lines opened.

[Pete.]

"No comment"

[T*]

"No comment"

everytime C5 does it it makes me so ****in angry

[smudgie]

How much clearer can vote to save be, most votes get saved:shrug:
I see no lies here.

[reece(:]

Let it go

[Jordan.]

Report ha

[Jarvio]

Same thing happened in January CBB with Winston's eviction. I posted about it on here and nobody gave a crap. I even emailed BB and they replied to me with some bureaucratic nonesense, trying to make out that they are being fair.

[Yaki da]

How much clearer can vote to save be, most votes get saved:shrug:
I see no lies here.

Are you a moron? It says the rules must be made clear... At what point did they make it clear that only 2 out of 4 people would safe and that either of the bottom 2 including the one with more votes could still go?

Every voter until 4 pm today was under the assumption that the person with the fewest votes would go. That is why Chloe was until that point a massive odds on favourite to go, but is now evens.

Only at around 4 - 5 PM was the fact that a bottom 2 would face a challenge made clear to voters who had been voting since 10 PM last night. The Ofcom rules clearly state "These rules must be clear and appropriately made known" and "stated at the time an invitation to participate is broadcast"

When did they tell us that the bottom 2 would face a challenge? About 18 hours after they made the invitation to participate.

[Yaki da]

Same thing happened in January CBB with Winston's eviction. I posted about it on here and nobody gave a crap. I even emailed BB and they replied to me with some bureaucratic nonesense, trying to make out that they are being fair.

If I had been here then, I would have agreed with you. If that is what happened.

Trying to take it up with them is useless. They will only answer to Ofcom who people should complain to.

I'm opposed to complaining about things that cause "Offense". But this is the sort of thing Ofcom should be there for.

[Yaki da]

Let it go

Nope. Duty to inform people of Channel 5 being in violation of the broadcasting code and how they can complain if they want to.

If you're not interested, stay out of the thread.

[Headie]

Let's be honest you're all kicking up a fuss now but you'll be cheering and gloating when Bear ends up being saved and James goes :/

[reece(:]

Nope. Duty to inform people of Channel 5 being in violation of the broadcasting code and how they can complain if they want to.

If you're not interested, stay out of the thread.

I'm free to comment on how ridiculous this is, but thanks your concern :thumbs:

[Yaki da]

Let's be honest you're all kicking up a fuss now but you'll be cheering and gloating when Bear ends up being saved and James goes :/

Wouldn't matter to me one way or another. The case I'm making wouldn't let anyone know who my favourite is or isn't. A lot of people seem to think this is being done deliberately to get James out and are complaining for that reason.

It is bad enough that they get away with changing the nomination rules every other week (which they can do, even though they shouldn't), but to mislead voters is a disgrace and against all broadcasting and ethical standards.

[Yaki da]

I'm free to comment on how ridiculous this is, but thanks your concern :thumbs:

And yet you are incapable of making an argument. You just make useless comments. Go away if you can't debate an issue.

The rules are clearly written there and Channel 5 are quite clearly in violation of them.

If you don't like people drawing attention to that, then you let it go and bugger off.

[hijaxers]

Wouldn't matter to me one way or another. The case I'm making wouldn't let anyone know who my favourite is or isn't. A lot of people seem to think this is being done deliberately to get James out and are complaining for that reason.

It is bad enough that they get away with changing the nomination rules every other week (which they can do, even though they shouldn't), but to mislead voters is a disgrace and against all broadcasting and ethical standards.

I think no matter what fuss you make - they are engineering James to go

[Yaki da]

I think no matter what fuss you make - they are engineering James to go

I don't care who goes. What I care about is them taking money in violation of Broadcasting codes.

Why do people look on at this behaviour and act as though it would be fine as long as they get the result they want? It's got nothing to do with anything.

[Beso]

Nope. Duty to inform people of Channel 5 being in violation of the broadcasting code and how they can complain if they want to.

If you're not interested, stay out of the thread.

well said.

it would be interesting to look into the betting side of it cause it seems morally wrong to me.

and they better say who was bottom before i judge my level of outrage.

[thisisdanny]

You already made a thread about this - can you not just add it to that? Bored now

[Yaki da]

You already made a thread about this - can you not just add it to that? Bored now

You mean you just don't care that Channel 5 is violating broadcasting and ethical standards.

If you are bored then do not enter such threads.

The fact is the vote opened at 10 pm last night. Only at 9 pm the next day did Emma confirm that the top 2 would be safe.

By Ofcom's broadcasting code that puts them in violation of it.

Again...

These rules must be clear and appropriately made known. In particular, significant conditions that may affect a viewer's or listener's decision to participate must be stated at the time an invitation to participate is broadcast.

It saddens me to see people time and time and time again allow these people to get away with this sort of thing. Though this is by far the worst thing I have seen them do. People will complain to Ofcom over someone thinking bisexuals just can't make their mind up, but the very thing Ofcom should exist to protect viewers/voters from they ignore.

[Jarvio]

I agree with the OP tbh.

So many other members here seem to be fine with (and even at times encouraging) BB to violate these rules. And when people's money is involved, it is even more ****ed up.

If any of these members actually pay to vote on BB, then I am amazed at how stupid they are. This has happened on the show more than once, and people are stupid enough to think "it wont happen to my favourite HM" - it might!!! Then you wouldn't be so happy about it, would you?

BB should never deceive the public when money is involved, no matter which HMs are involved! Yeah I hated Winston and wanted him gone that week, but if he didn't get the least amount of votes, then he shouldn't have gone, solely for that reason.

[Yaki da]

I'm afraid people just don't care anymore. They'll complain over words that offend them being broadcast but things that are totally corrupt or extremely dodgy they just accept without questioning.

The rules could not be clearer and they did not inform viewers of exactly what they were voting for. They did not make it clear which the broadcasting code says they must. For 22 hours until Emma Willis informed us that there would be a bottom 2 most people were voting under the assumption that the top 3 would be safe and the person with the fewest votes would be evicted.

Now the person who came third could be evicted over the person who got the fewest. That should have been made known before voting lines ever opened.

[Yaki da]

Right, can all you people who thought James was out and it was fixed now be quiet. The BB producers don't care. What they have done however is mislead the voters on what it was they were voting for. In clear and obvious breach of broadcasting standards.

Unfortunately because James is now safe, most of you will not give a ****, because the producers can get away with anything so long as it doesn't lead to a favourite with the forums going.

But ethical standards have been trampled over with this and people should draw attention to this fact.

[Yaki da]

Imagine that situation... They've misled the voters, in violation of broadcasting codes. And Marnie who almost certainly came 3rd and had the overwhelming majority of HMs wanting to save her could have actually gone.

This is what you have allowed this show to become. You care more about old homosexuals thinking that bisexuals can't make their minds up than about them misleading voters and screwing over contestants.

[Yaki da]

I just saw this post on DS and rolled my eyes...

OFCOM and Emma
Emma Willis has just put the integrity of Big Brother in question.
I no longer have faith that the telephone votes are fair. The phone votes cannot be fair and impartial if the host is clearly using her influence to interfere with the voting process. I can't trust that the producers (Emma's work colleagues) don't share her views and won't therefore do whatever they can to ensure they get the outcome they wish for.
If ever there is a case for OFCOM to look into, then this is it.

Actually no, the case for OFCOM was them misleading the voters on what they were actually voting for. The lines were open for 23 hours and 45 minutes and only in the last 45 minutes were voters told by a member of the production team (Emma at the start of the show) that their votes would only save the top 2 and that the 3rd placed housemate could be evicted. So for 23 hours many voters would have believed that the person with the fewest votes would be evicted as per usual. But Emma having a rant is what these people complain about.

[Mystic Mock]

I'm interested to know who really got the least votes between Marnie and Chloe considering it was only supposed to be 2% between them.

[Yaki da]

I'm interested to know who really got the least votes between Marnie and Chloe considering it was only supposed to be 2% between them.

2% was between 2nd and 3rd obviously. Chloe was bottom. James top. Marnie and Bear were the two with 2% between them. So bear could have ended up in the bottom 2. Every poll, the facebook likes and twitter retweets which collectively can prove to be very reliable of how voting is going showed this to be the case.

[Mystic Mock]

2% was between 2nd and 3rd obviously. Chloe was bottom. James top. Marnie and Bear were the two with 2% between them. So bear could have ended up in the bottom 2. Every poll, the facebook likes and twitter retweets which collectively can prove to be very reliable of how voting is going showed this to be the case.

That's poor from Bear considering his suppose to be the "big character" of the series.

[user104658]

I would imagine that when they are simply saying "vote to save", then all they have to do to be within the rules is ensure that the person with the most votes stays. All bets are off beyond that. They could for example have 5 people up, and at the last minute say "everyone except the one with the most is leaving". That would be perfectly legitimate.

What they could NOT do, for example would be have a VTE and then at the last minute say "it's a head to head between the two people who got most votes to evict". They would HAVE to evict the person who got most.

[Yaki da]

That's poor from Bear considering his suppose to be the "big character" of the series.

He's like Perez Hilton I think. Someone you think might be doing well in the vote because of his presence on the HL show but someone who isn't as popular as people think.

[Miranda123]

Broadcast competitions and voting

2.13 Broadcast competitions and voting must be conducted fairly.

2.14 Broadcasters must ensure that viewers and listeners are not materially misled about any broadcast competition or voting.

2.15 Broadcasters must draw up rules for a broadcast competition or vote. These rules must be clear and appropriately made known. In particular, significant conditions that may affect a viewer's or listener's decision to participate must be stated at the time an invitation to participate is broadcast.


http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/legacy/broadcast-code-september-2010/harmoffence/

They are clearly in breach of 2.15 as they did not make the rules of the vote clear at "the time an invitation to participate is broadcast". On the contrary, it is now 19: 45 pm and we still do not know what we are voting for exactly. Channel 5 have supposedly confirmed to fan sites that the bottom 2 will face a challenge but there is no mention on their website and there was no mention of this at the end of last night's show when lines opened.

You are completely right of course. I dont know whether they can get round it because they say "anything can happen" but it is very bad form to allow the public to vote on some evictions but not others, just cause the producers want certain people to stay in. I think they came unstuck with James tonight, but they couldnt do anything once he had the most votes

I think we all know that BB do what they want, not what we want, its up to us to decide whether we pay for that or not!

[Mystic Mock]

He's like Perez Hilton I think. Someone you think might be doing well in the vote because of his presence on the HL show but someone who isn't as popular as people think.

I'm still disgusted that Michelle Visage beat Perez.:yuk:

And I would've been disgusted if Bear had've lost to one of the two girls who have done zero.

[Yaki da]

I would imagine that when they are simply saying "vote to save", then all they have to do to be within the rules is ensure that the person with the most votes stays.

Nope, read the rules. They have to make it CLEAR to the voters what the rules are. If they leave you believing that the person with the fewest votes will be evicted for the majority of the voting time and then tell you that the 2 with the most votes are the only ones definitely safe and the 3rd placed housemate could go then they are in violation. Whether or not enough people will complain is doubtful however. If Ofcom were alerted by enough people to this I am sure they would be in trouble.

But Ofcom's time is spent dealing with people complaining about homosexuals blaming bisexuals for AIDS, instead of things like this which is what Ofcom should really be for.


What they could NOT do, for example would be have a VTE and then at the last minute say "it's a head to head between the two people who got most votes to evict". They would HAVE to evict the person who got most.

Again, the rules are there to be read and they clearly state the following...

2.15 Broadcasters must draw up rules for a broadcast competition or vote. These rules must be clear and appropriately made known. In particular, significant conditions that may affect a viewer’s or listener’s decision to participate must be stated at the time an invitation to participate is broadcast.

The rules of this vote were not made absolutely clear until Emma Willis announced it at 9 pm, 23 hours AFTER lines were opened and most people assumed that the person with the fewest votes would be evicted. i asumed that. others assumed that. Gamblers assumed that (Hence the reason Chloe was a massive odds on favourite to go until the news came out there would be a bottom 2)

They may not have done this intentionally but it is quite clear to see that if you do not make CLEAR what the rules of a vote you've asked people to participate in are then you can be found in breach of that code.

[Yaki da]

You are completely right of course. I dont know whether they can get round it because they say "anything can happen" but it is very bad form to allow the public to vote on some evictions but not others, just cause the producers want certain people to stay in. I think they came unstuck with James tonight, but they couldnt do anything once he had the most votes

I don't think they are trying to rig anything (at least not this time - I don't believe James was ever in danger). I just think they're utterly inept and don't know the broadcasting rules or have any ethical standards at all.

I think we all know that BB do what they want, not what we want, its up to us to decide whether we pay for that or not!

It's up to people to inform Ofcom of what is going on here. I'm sorry to say that some people are just too stupid to understand how they are misleading people with this sort of thing. But Ofcom should be there to protect those people from this sort of thing. It could easily get worse than this.

[user104658]

Nope, read the rules. They have to make it CLEAR to the voters what the rules are. If they leave you believing that the person with the fewest votes will be evicted for the majority of the voting time and then tell you that the 2 with the most votes are the only ones definitely safe and the 3rd placed housemate could go then they are in violation. Whether or not enough people will complain is doubtful however. If Ofcom were alerted by enough people to this I am sure they would be in trouble.

But Ofcom's time is spent dealing with people complaining about homosexuals blaming bisexuals for AIDS, instead of things like this which is what Ofcom should really be for.




Again, the rules are there to be read and they clearly state the following...

2.15 Broadcasters must draw up rules for a broadcast competition or vote. These rules must be clear and appropriately made known. In particular, significant conditions that may affect a viewer’s or listener’s decision to participate must be stated at the time an invitation to participate is broadcast.

The rules of this vote were not made absolutely clear until Emma Willis announced it at 9 pm, 23 hours AFTER lines were opened and most people assumed that the person with the fewest votes would be evicted. i asumed that. others assumed that. Gamblers assumed that (Hence the reason Chloe was a massive odds on favourite to go until the news came out there would be a bottom 2)

They may not have done this intentionally but it is quite clear to see that if you do not make CLEAR what the rules of a vote you've asked people to participate in are then you can be found in breach of that code.
It would be a tough one to push through in my opinion. It's a simple vote. Vote to save the person you want to stay... Most votes stays. You don't get to rank them in order or have a 2nd / 3rd choice. They have never, for example, announced at the start of the vote if there will be a "votes freeze" where the one / two with most votes is safe, and they've been doing that for years. It amounts to the same thing.

I can see your point but I genuinely don't think anything at all is implied by "vote to save", other than that "most votes is saved", and they haven't broken that. Anything else would purely be the assumption of the voter.

[Yaki da]

It would be a tough one to push through in my opinion. It's a simple vote. Vote to save the person you want to stay... Most votes stays. You don't get to rank them in order or have a 2nd / 3rd choice.

The code states clearly that the rules of what you are voting on must be made clear. Now for 23 hours it was not at any point made clear that there would be a bottom 2. That can affect whether or not people will bother voting in something and voters must be informed of that before voting lines open.

This would put them in violation of both of these...

2.14 Broadcasters must ensure that viewers and listeners are not materially misled about any broadcast competition or voting.

2.15 Broadcasters must draw up rules for a broadcast competition or vote. These rules must be clear and appropriately made known. In particular, significant conditions that may affect a viewer's or listener's decision to participate must be stated at the time an invitation to participate is broadcast.

Voters were clearly led to believe that this would be an eviction like any other (at no point was it suggested otherwise until Friday afternoon) and that the person with the fewest votes would go.


They have never, for example, announced at the start of the vote if there will be a "votes freeze" where the one / two with most votes is safe, and they've been doing that for years. It amounts to the same thing.

It doesn't at all. They say voting will close in Friday's eviction show. That's all they need to tell people. It is the rules of the vote itself they have to make clear. This is there to be read in the code. If they only inform you 23 hours after a vote has opened what the actual rules are then they are clearly in breach of 2.15 where it says In particular, significant conditions that may affect a viewer's or listener's decision to participate must be stated at the time an invitation to participate is broadcast. They invited people to vote on Thursday night at about 10 pm when the HL show finished, but they did not tell people that only the top 2 would be safe. I could have been voting for Marnie, believing James and Bear were definitely going to be in the top 2, but I had to make sure Marnie wasn't bottom and therefore Chloe would be evicted. If I had known that there would be a bottom 2, and it would be decided by chance between them, I wouldn't have bothered as I would have already known she was very likely to be in it. So they took my money having made me believe that as long as I voted Marnie into third Chloe would go. In actual fact Marnie was still at risk of being evicted despite possibly being 3rd in the vote and Chloe bottom. For the majority of the voting time I had no idea this was the case and was well within my reason for thinking the person who came 4th in the vote would be evicted as the person with the fewest votes had been evicted in the previous evictions.

I can see your point but I genuinely don't think anything at all is implied by "vote to save", other than that "most votes is saved" and they haven't broken that. Anything else would purely be the assumption of the voter.

The Ofcom broadcasting code says "Broadcasters must draw up rules for a broadcast competition or vote. These rules must be clear and appropriately made known". If you have had lines open for 23 hours and only in the last 45 minutes told voters that there will be a bottom 2 then you have only fully informed them of what the rules were at the very end of the vote. Therefore the rules were not made clear at all and it was misleading to voters.

The fact is the majority of people probably thought the person with the fewest votes would be evicted. If only the person who tops the vote is safe, or the top 2 then they MUST make that clear before lines open. This is especially true when the standard procedure has been that whoever does have the fewest votes is evicted. How are voters to know the person with the fewest votes may not be evicted if you do not tell them that this may not be the case.

[Clootie Dumpling]

I agree with you, Yaki Da.

By pulling this stunt, BB created the possibility that the person who was the third most popular might be evicted, rather than the person who received the fewest votes.

If Chloe didn't receive the fewest votes, those who spent money voting for her have been cheated.

I'd like to know who actually came third and fourth according to the vote, so that those who were duped into voting could claim their money back.

[user104658]

Do they make it clear on the X factor before every vote, that there will be a bottom two and a sing off, with the decision on who will leave ultimately lying with the judges? I know it's been the format for years and so could possibly be considered as "known"... But, they don't explicitly state this every time the voting lines open, and surely you could argue that some at home might be first time viewers and not aware of the format?