To be fair Emma did announce that a "game of chance" with a "hefty price" being paid at the end on Tuesday night:

Between that and them not announcing "Who stays? You decide" at the end of last night's show, technically they've done nothing wrong. I agree that it's not a very good twist and it looks very convenient though.

What's to be fair about here? when you ask people to vote and they are spending money you make it 100% clear what they are spending their money on. Now no one could have possibly known what they were spending their money on until 18 hours after the lines opened because they've only just come up with the rule now.

That is blatantly misleading to people spending their money. Emma saying what she said didn't tell us anything about what we were voting for.

Delete.

Surely that's not enough like info is it??

I don't see the issue to be honest, vote to save the one with the most votes is safe :laugh:

So have I. Who else has reported them?

They never said the one with the most votes would be the only one safe or the two with the most votes would be the only ones safe.

The 2 previous evictions the person with the fewest votes has been evicted. Unless they specifically stated otherwise why should voters think it is any different this time?

If you are going to do what they are doing then you need to inform voters BEFORE the lines open. That is what they do on I'm A Celebrity. If you're voting for a challenge you are told BEFORE the lines open that the top 2 will do it.

Or if you're voting for people to stay in and there will a challenge between the bottom 2, they tell you BEFORE the lines open.

If they did not do this, they would get themselves in trouble. As the code states...

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

It is legitimate for voters to feel they have been misled here. How could they be anything other than misled when they don't tell us what we're actually voting for until hours after the lines have opened?

Just reported to ofcom .fed up with getting mugged off

It's no different to freezing the vote and saving the top 2, the person who was bottom could get a rush of votes from fans of the top 2 who want the other one out thereby changing the result, I don't vote anyway so I couldn't care either way

It clearly is different. Because they can stop and start a vote when they want. They cannot mislead viewers on what it is they are voting for which is what they have done here. And there is no denying that that is what they have done. How could viewers be anything but misled when they opened lines last night but have only now at 5 pm confirmed that the bottom 2 will be in danger, rather than the person with the fewest votes evicted (as has been the case for the previous 2 evictions)

Until then almost everyone voting believed that the person with the fewest votes was going. You can freeze votes and save two, but if you have led people to believe whoever has the fewest at the time of the announcement will be the evictee then you have misled voters.

There are people gambling on these events. Chloe had become an odds on favourite to go. Now all of a sudden she could be a bottom 2 and survive despite having the fewest votes by a huge margin. They've misled voters, they've misled gamblers. They're taking people's money here.

As I pointed out, you would not ever see anything like this on I'm A Celebrity. If the two with the fewest votes have to compete to stay in then that channel will make sure they have informed the voters of that before the lines opened, which is what Channel 5/BB should have done. But because they're amateurs they have misled voters and cost people money.

As its vote to save then I think it is fair enough.
No more unfair than allowing the three saved housemates to have killer noms.
I am voting James, I expect it's a good chance he will end up bottom two, as they all have the same chance of being saved in the top two or not then it is all fair, no bias against any of the 4 .

No it is not, unless they tell us that only 2 of the 4 are going to be safe. They did not do that. They led people to believe that the person with the fewest votes would be the one evicted.

That is misleading the voters.

People clearly believed that. Chloe had been a huge favourite to go today. It is now very close in the odds. There could well have been insider trading.

What goes on inside the show is up to the producers. They CANNOT mislead viewers on a phone vote. That puts them in breach of broadcasting standards.

Nobody seemed to care when they did something similar for the first cbb17 eviction

Did the producers make clear before lines opened that there would be a HM vote? The entire complaint hinges on the fact that they led people to believe something and then changed the rules after lines opened.

I don't think they did until eviction night

I didn't watch that series. But if that was the case then people should have complained then and I certainly would have.

I don't like this twist but people complaining to ofcom are wasting their time. C5 aren't that stupid, they wouldn't have done the twist if they thought there was a possibility they'd get in trouble for it

E

Well, as Emma is going inside the house after the person with the most votes is saved I see no problem.
Viewers are not being misled...vote to save, if your votes have saved your favourite then brilliant.after that it is all about playing a game.
If it was a double eviction then fair enough, we get told as it matters

Actually, your point about the way this could affect people who have had a bet on this result, is an important one. People could have put large amounts of money on who will be evicted, and lose their cash when they shouldn't have. That does make it an even bigger issue.

That's why it called gambling, no certainty

Sorry Yaki, I can't get worked up for this

They cannot really say that credibly when they announce 2 that are saved often.
I get your point though Jamie.

I guess unfortunately BB can do what they like but when its people spending time and money to avoid their favourite being the last place in an eviction battle,it stinks for me, if they then bring in a scenario where someone voted for, who was not in last place, goes out.

Little point in having the public vote at all.

They are no more wasting their time than people who complained about being misled by BGT were. They were refunded their voting money

They have consistently proven themselves to be the stupidest people working in television.

Yes they would. They have had to do things like refund viewers before. Even the BBC had to do this in a series of SCD because their voting system made it impossible to save a certain dancer in the semi final (when it was Tom, Rachel and Lisa Snowden). Even the most professional channels make these mistakes.

Most likely thing that will happen with some bookies is that the bets cast will be made null and void. If the rules of a market change, this often happens.

No, they can't. Not in regards to phone votes which there are very clear broadcasting standards on. You cannot mislead voters. And that is clearly what they have done here.