They should get these really thick bin liners because the cheap thin ones stretch and tear easily.

Quite. But it simply does not follow from that that there is any effort whatsoever to influence the eviction vote.

No. You have interpreted those incidents as examples of the phenomenon you are trying to provide evidence for. I see no reason to believe that any of those incidents involved the attempts by the programme makers to influence the public vote.

Absolutely. Yet it still does not follow from that that the programme is edited in order to influence the vote.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasion, it is utterly preposterous to suggest that Channel 4 would cancel the biggest event of their television week to "save" any Housemate. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that such an unlikely event took place.

I am happy to review any evidence of "hatchet jobs" or attempts to influence the vote but so far none has been presented. All we have is a series of anecdotes of dubious merit plus a few highly questionable interpretations.

I don't like either of them but I need to work out which would be the bigger loss to the show and I am excited about the first open eviction of this series - we don't know who will go! :thumbs2:

Its not BB that hates Marcus, its Channel4, because its C4 that dictate BB policy, and Marcus sticks 2 fingers up and shows his behind to BB policy.

Marcus is the BB anti-christ, and anyone who gets annoyed with BB should be loving Marcus.

So what is your explanation for keeping Nikki in the house, or returning her to the house? Or the constant need to up Mikey's reputation while pushing Rachel's lower last season. Saving Sree earlier in the season until a story was available.

You may call it dubious but there is evidently a story there - otherwise what do we have in it's place? Will the housemates play ball?

In BB8, Chanelle left and after the house next door had been done and all romances were over - the only think left was Brian and Sam or Amanda (can't remember which) and it went stale. There was no storyline left at all.

In BB9 the switchover came in bringing Sara into prominence.

The difference, what I am trying to say is, either you think that these people are like this or stressors and influences are projected onto them to react. They are given a scenario where they will and must behave in accordance to what is available.

In this case, you need only look at other housemates who do nothing while others do something. You give a housemate power, like Noirin gained through Marcus/Siavash and they will start to have romances and such to show their power. Even if in Big Brothers eyes this will backfire as it always does.

Your view is these things just happen but for all we know in life - nothing, just happens and in this house things are controlled.

The whole idea of hatchet jobs kicked into gear when Jon and Federico - two of the biggest draws of BB4 were removed along with Anouska (who I disliked) on the first night of BB4. They removed big ratings boosters and were left with people who just read books and Cameron who was unbelievably dull.

So as much as you may believe it's dubious - numerous events in the past show how easily removable housemates have been saved for the show's ratings.

On top of this we have numerous interviews from producers and ex housemates. We have books written about this as well as articles that indicate that romances and storylines are encouraged. Housemates have come out of the diary room saying, they keep asking about a certain (storyline based) housemate and Rodrigo even said this season openly that if they want some material for the next days highlights, they call him but otherwise they don't even call him at all.

Other evidence of this came from Sree who said clearly that Marcus had argued with production staff and doesn't listen to them. Another factor of the intervention that production has on the show and what occurs.

I know some fans would love to believe that producers don't intervene but apart from this being illogical on the basis of what evidence we have, collectively, it also is illogical on the basis of why we have producers in the first place. They are there to produce and encourage that the show has continuity and that is why they do hatchet jobs.

I feel it's all for the cameras though.

Tom did far more than Marcus could ever do in merely 20 minutes of highlights.

I have absolutely no problem with the notion that the producers are interested in, and act to promote interesting and amusing storylines. So it is certainly not my view that "things just happen", as you have erroneously claimed. Much of what you have said in your post supports the idea that the producers act to initiate and promote interesting storylines. But then that is not the point at issue, since I already accept that.

What I have a problem with, is the notion that there is any effort by the producers to influence the nominations or the public vote for or against any particular Housemate. So for example, it is often claimed on this forum that a Housemate has received a "bad edit" and this is evidence that the producers do not like said Housemate and are trying to "get them evicted". But there is no reason to believe that there is any such systematic relation.

As I have said again and again, I have yet to see any evidence that such influence occurs, although I am happy to review it if it should be presented.

As far as I am concerned the idea that there are hatchet jobs or conspiracies to get certain Housemates out or keep certain Housemates in is a myth.

I also note that an amusing by-product of this obsession with such conspiracies is that it is not uncommon to see one group of people maintaining that the producers are trying to get someone out and another group of people claiming that the producers are trying to keep the very same person in, all in the very same week. It is ridiculous.

Well, I for one will not be doing as you tell me, Sorry I just can't bring myself to do it; it'll "gee ma the boak"!

Well I am utterly objective to this as I barely have a favourite in the house but I do know and see this occurring. I have given views as to why but as far as evidence goes - well there are numerous points where live feed events have been ignored.

Just the other week, Halfwit started up an argument where he sided with Lisa, most of the house did - then he turned against Lisa as well. None of this was shown on the highlights, in fact it was ignored.

The week they wanted Kris removed, numerous highlights showed him in a bad light. Sree - numerous highlights showed him in a bad light, for weeks. They didn't show Marcus, Cairon and Siavash winding up Noirin or making fun of Sree - this was ignored from the highlights - but they showed Sree going around Noirin.

Another situation is how Tom said he can now see why people find Halfwit annoying because he does do things that wind people up. He has mannerisms. I for one, took devils advocate on this point stating, if all the house felt Halfwit was doing this then this could be possible. I based this on the fact, we didn't see any of these annoying traits that housemates talked about but we did see Halfwit constantly walking behind housemates asking them why they found him annoying. For me this was a case of somebody annoying people then becoming sheepish with a victim like behaviour asking people why they found him annoying. I feel it is evident that these key factors to housemate's qualms were ignored - along with Siavash, Sree and Cairon winding up Sree; which Sree said and I noticed but were neglected from livefeed but it was commented on by Lisa and Charlie that those three did wind up Sree, but we didn't see it.

These factors led to housemate removal.

So I guess - if you watch the show as a means of just what happens, evidence wouldn't be accepted. If you are looking for evidence in the way of a letter from a producer saying "Hello, yes we do favour housemates in editing before an eviction to sway voters opinion", then it will not be forthcoming. Yet if you understand the state of Television, if you have read articles and publications on the way Reality TV is made, if you have read the books surrounding Big Brother and Reality TV - you will see as clear as day that production manipulation occurs over and over again.

If what I say doesn't vouch for that, you're looking for evidence that isn't forthcoming in any situation in life - which is the evidence of firstly a wrong doing (which it isn't, nothing is wrong here, it's just TV fact) and some kind of conspiracy as you put it, which it isn't because this is what TV has done since the inception of Television and also the inception of theatre. When stories are made we are swayed towards the protagonist and we are persuaded and influenced in the storyline to side with him/her or support him/her. It's basically the basis of script, storyboard and production.

The basis of Reality TV, used to be that it's completely open ended but, we don't have multiple cameras we can always watch, we do not have a live feed we can always watch, we do not have the production details and the manipulation that occurs within a house which is not a controlled environment at all because BB manipulates regularly and unequally.

It is I guess then, how you watch and also your conceptual view of the scenario where therefore, the evidence you seek will never be forthcoming - not in any frame of existence or light.

he is not in next weeks script....and they don't spend all that time writing the script and then not execute it

Of course "reality" tv is manipulated, its done so viewers dont switch off when their favourite turns out to be not like they first thought they were, even live feed is edited to some extent, there are times when housemates say something that would totally undermine their popularity, or make them become more popular and so the sound is cut, its not always because of someone singing nor the privacy of someone outside the BB experience.

There is no question that the way the programme is edited can influence the public vote. It would be ridiculous to deny that it could. But this is not enough; the point is, to establish the "hatchet job" thesis one needs a systematic and recurring relationship between a decision by the production team to get a Housemate out, or keep a Housemate in, and the way the programme is edited.

The examples given are, in my view, simply a case of "projection". One makes an assumption about who the producers want out (or in) and then projects that intent onto the highlights show (or the content of the website). It is a common failing of the human intellect, observed and discussed in psychology: to interpret events systematically in line with existing prejudices. The "hatchet jobs" and "conspiracies" often discussed on here are little different from the kinds of ridiculous interpretations so common in other areas such as in sport.

So, take Marcus' tantrum in the Diary Room. Almost inevitably, if Marcus is evicted on Friday (and I really, really hope he is not) someone will think Big Brother's showing that incident was part of a "hatchet job" in order to persuade the public to evict him. Yet it is far, far more plausible that it was shown simply because Marcus did it and it made interesting and entertaining television. And with no real evidence to the contrary, that is what reasonable people should believe.

And I will repeat this point: it is not uncommon for one group to perceive a conspiracy to keep a Housemate in and another group to get the very same Housemate out, in the very same week. This is a powerful indication of the inherent unreliability of such interpretations.

As an actual example of the quagmire of conspiracy one can get into, just take the last seven days, with threads claiming that Marcus was being "saved", Lisa was being "saved", Charlie was being "saved". And now this week there is apparently a conspiracy to get Marcus out, the very week after Channel 4 apparently cancelled their biggest television event of the week purely in order to keep him in. Can't these inept conspirators at Channel 4 and Endemol make up their minds?

The whole thing is ridiculous.