Channel 4 may suspend, withdraw, cancel or *re-set* the Vote at any time!
 

Channel 4 may suspend, withdraw, cancel or *re-set* the Vote for any reason at its sole discretion and at any time.

Channel 4 reserves the right to discount votes if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that fraudulent bulk votes have been cast (i.e. more votes than a human being could possibly submit in the time available without the use of software or other devices designed to make automated votes).

Channel 4's decision in relation to all matters affecting the Votes is final.

Channel 4 reserves the right to amend these Terms and Conditions without prior notice. Any changes will be posted on this website and such posting shall be adequate notice to all participants. Please check these Terms and Conditions each time you wish to vote.

http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/v...ing-terms.html

That sounds very very dodgy. Like they can do anything, and not be charged about it. :nono:

Yes very dodgy

Yes, but it still doesn't discount that Hira was rightfully evicted.

Accually...

That was put up ages ago becase of Rachel winning BB9, because it was fixed NOT by C4 but by a gang who wanted the money so ****ed up the voting.

They found so many votes coming from one location at once.

Thats all that rule means it basically stops another Rachel Rice incident

"Any changes will be posted on this website and such posting shall be adequate notice to all participants."

No prior warnings, votes not touched them

At last i finally found out why that complete waste of time won..thanks :thumbs:

under no circumstances will voting charges be refunded...

i thought they were if evictions were cancelled.

and grr to rachel winning, she lost me £500

big brother can re-set the vote any time he wishes.

It is basically just standard legalese to protect Channel 4 if they have to intervene due to unpredictable events, such as people jumping over the wall and running away when leading the vote. I wouldn't read too much into it.

Yup the ubiquitous clauses to cover a situation such as you mention. Another example was when the invoked the reset and refunded because the wrong numbers has been advertised on TV after the HL show on one eviction.

Quite right.

And what most people don't understand is that such legal terminology expressly does not protect a guilty party which is not acting in good faith. The cited clauses certainly do not give Channel 4 carte blanche to do as they please. If they were ever involved in any real malpractice then they would not be protected.