Actually there is a difference. In fact there is an important difference.

Legally and socially most of what we say isn't taken literally. Context and tone are what allows co-existence.

The removal of context and tone is one of the key reasons that secondhand information causes so many problems. Its tainted by bias.

The difference is ashliegh said it to his face helen said her comment in a diff room

There was no difference in how either of them said it. Both of them said it because they were pissed off. Neither was anywhere close to actually doing anything.

If Helen had screamed it at Ashleigh and threatened her like the Matthew incident you'd have a point. But that's not what happened. In fact the opposite, Ashleigh said it directly to him. Are threats not banned in BB? We're not talking about legally, we're talking about Big Brother, where the rules used to be pretty clear.

But they also pick and choose when to punish nomination discussion so I'm really not surprised.

And are you the "only one informed" about what the other HM's do or don't know.

I think what you mean to say is that he's the only one that has made comment. Whether he's correct, or not, we don't know.

Im sure if it really happened ofcom would of went to town on them when they had complaints

Again going back to the formal warning. Helen has been warned that she is being monitored. Her past behaviour was too aggressive. Anything that she says has to be taken more seriously.

People make idle threats, and overblown statements, all the time. But on a show like BB, in a working environment, in a school, in a social group, if you have been warned about your behaviour and language in the past, you will be treated harsher for any lapses.

I'm sorry, again, we the viewing public have no idea what the communication between Ofcom and C5 is like.

You can't make a guess about something and then declare it as "proof" about something else.

You're missing the point. Threatening behaviour is not tolerated, previous warning or not.

But then the rules state housemates are forbidden from discussing nominations and they receive food and drink every night despite living on "rations" so I'm really not surprised.

i picked up on this last night. only correct.

I'm not sure it's ofcom's business. Aren't they only there tot enforce things that can and can't be broadcast? It's not down to them to check what happens in there if it isn't shown on TV.

I think you are missing the point.

How many fights/arguments was Helen involved in before getting her formal warning?

Helen was "let off" over and over again, until she took it too far.

By your own argument Helen should have been kicked out weeks ago.

Different point.

No, you are still missing the point.

I've not said Helen didn't deserve a warning. I'm looking for equal application of rules, which is nigh on impossible with BB these days. So my last sentence wasn't a different point, it was the point.

Threatening behaviour and language is threatening behaviour and language no matter what. Ashleigh should have had a warning regardless of whatever Helen has done.

Your assertion that Helen was "let off" time and time again is simply guesswork as you keep telling others.

Big Brother Xtra ‏@BigBrotherXtra
ANOTHER warning! Helen weeps as Big Bro blast Ashleigh threats! pic.twitter.com/6idA76ODbm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BucRV28CYAAY4fG.jpg

you ashleigh fans only hear what u want to hear, open your minds and be honest

It is if viewers complained about the warnings

We don't know about warnings that haven't aired. :conf: What would you complain about?

You are asking for consistency of the rules.

Helen was allowed to rant, name call and argue unchecked for the first few weeks.

Consistency would demand that others would be allowed a few weeks of ranting, name calling and arguing.

Inconsistency would be having a HM called up for a first offense, when compared to another HM being allowed to vent as they liked.

You can't have it both ways. If you want consistency, then allow for consistency. But if you want consistency and ask for inconsistency...

As is your assumption that Ashleigh wasn't asked about it in the DR room.

Again consistency. If Helen was "let off", then Ashleigh should be "let off". If Helen was talked to privately, then Ashleigh should have been. If Helen's conversations were kept private, then Ashleigh's should be too.

If you don't know, but are demanding consistency, then its a slippy slope of ifs.

Hello brick wall. *bang* *bang* *bang*

Yet you are complaining about a warning that may, or may not, of happened. All we really know is that it wasn't aired.

:facepalm: No I'm not. I'm expressing my opinion that Big Brother is not sticking to its own rules.

That has nothing to do with Ofcom which the other poster was referring to. They do not deal with how the BB game is played/ran, that's not down to them. Missed the point again.

..please don't do that and please don't question honesty of fans, Asgleigh's or otherwise..if there is any honesty to be questioned, it's that of BB producers because a warning should have rightly been given in both cases so if we're to assume that Ashleigh also got one but that it wasn't shown then that wasn't 'honest' of them either because she should have been seen by the viewers to be warned as well..as should all housemate warning as viewers are the ones who spend their honest money to vote and make the show....

...its easy to make comments about others opinions when you don't share your own...

And I would say that you've missed the point.

Hello deflection of points... :joker:

About ofcom? No I haven't sweetie.

When you respond to everything I say as though I'm saying Helen shouldn't have been warned or that everything she's had is fair there is nothing more to say. You miss the point.

Ashleigh probably did get warned but it just wasn't shown but as Helen has been warned a few times now that's probably why they decided to show it .

Im talking about when ofcom had complaints about helens behaviour they would have looked into it

If you keep demanding that BB are consistent and that all "threatening behaviour" is treated the same, but have nothing to go on but what has been shown on the HL show, then you've missed the point.

If you expect BB to edit the show so that we see every interaction and reaction, then you've missed the point.

If you want BB to follow their own rules, when for 15 years BB have openly stated that BB can change the rules at any time, then you've missed the point.

And if you are surprised that a person keeps referring to Helen getting warned, or not getting warned, in a thread about Helen getting warned, then you've missed a very large point.

The only way to discuss the rights and wrongs about Helen getting warned, and question whether Ashleigh was or not, is to discuss Helen, Ashleigh, BB and how they act/edit/control the situation.

Everything about fans reactions in BB is about opinions. We all have them. We come to sites like this to talk about them, and that is the point.

From what aired. Her actual behaviour in there off camera is of no interest surely?

Just like the punishment C4 got over the race row was over what was aired and how it was aired.

Oh dear. That's a nice story.

Come back when you're actually on topic and not putting daft words in my mouth. :thumbs:

If its repeat offending (which it is) they have every right to look at what is being done to sort it out

Looking at the details that we do know.

Helen received a number of warnings about her behaviour in the past. IIRC the formal warning was issued when she threatened Mathew in a physical way, right in his face. This was not as a result of offense built up (repeated offenses) but due to the extreme nature of the single attack on Mathew.

Helen has not repeated anything like that again in the house, and so, I don't believe she has received another formal warning (bit confusing given all the poster noise :))

So, given the nature of both Helen's and Ashleigh's behaviour, and it being almost identical, we would reasonably expect BB to issue Ashleigh and Helen with informal warnings where it would appear it was only applied to Helen.

That is what is angering many here as it doesn't appear to be at all consistent

No they don't. They are the broadcast regulator, it's not down to them to ensure anything about housemates being warned/behaviour. They enforce rules about what is broadcast and what isn't.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

Good comment! I agree

we only see 1 hour of big brother! we do not know if ashleigh did or didnt get a warning, ashleigh didnt say it in an agressive tone she said it in a moody tone. big brother knows ashleigh never ment it because she hasn't come across agressive as helen, people hate helen more then ashleigh to

But they knew Helen meant it because she kicks people's head in? Ok.

The double standards argument is totally right tbh...it happens all the time though.

If a guy says it to another guy, it all depends on how big they are. If a girl says something to a guy its fine, whereas there would be hell on the other way round...etc etc

I mean, imagine if Pav had gone in and told (for example) Helen that he wanted to ride her and stuff immediately, then gone on and on about it..despite it quite obviously making Helen uncomfortable. He would be labelled a sex pest and likely ejected after about an hour. Whereas it was funny and fine with it being Biannca...

BB is full of double standards, as is life sadly.