Legitimate reason for Ofcom: Cannot change what people have been voting for mid-vote
 

Not without getting themselves in trouble. If they want to do a bottom 2 of the vote then they needed to announce that before lines opened, so people picking up the phone knew exactly what they were voting for. Viewers have been led to believe that whoever gets the fewest votes this eviction would be out. If that isn't so, then they can be reported to trading standards.

As I understand it this hasn't actually been confirmed by BBUK yet, as such I'm sceptical of this story,

Totally agree......... Other tv shows have been fined for vote rigging and this is whats happening here

BB Spy are reporting this now as well as Big Blagger. So I'm inclined to believe it.

The fact is you cannot lead people to think whoever the person with the fewest votes is will be evicted, take their money as they vote, and then change what they have been led to believe they are voting for mid-vote.

I wish some of you would stop worrying about whether it means James or whoever will go or not and understand what the production and the Channel are doing here. They are taking money from people they have deliberately misled. That is a serious issue.

If this was covered by Ofcom, then this late notice change of rules on what we are voting for is as well...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33957710

Whether Channel 5/Production have deliberately misled or not, they have misled those who voted.

From the Broadcasting Code - look at 2.15...

"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."

Surely this is what Channel 5 are guilty of not doing?

Absolutely that is what they are doing. the phone lines opened and not once were we informed that it would be the bottom 2 facing some challenge. We were led to believe it would be an eviction like any other eviction and that the person with the fewest votes would be evicted. That is what people have been voting for and now with 5 hours to go they decide the bottom 2 will face a challenge?

They have blatantly misled the voters. Some of whom still won't know this is the case because only Big Blagger and BB Spy are reporting it. Channel 5 need to clarify what is going on here.

Calm down, it might be good if Marnie gets the Geordie Shore vote and James gets the anti-Bear vote, imagine a Bear and Chloe bottom 2 with Bear going home after a game of chance :joker:

I wonder if they'd get round it by saying it's a vote to save, and the housemate with the most votes has been saved so it was fair? I mean personally I think it should be totally open and people should understand the consequences of what will happen to the housemate(s) who receive the least votes, but in a VTS scenario where the housemate(s) with the most votes are saved regardless... are they technically breaking any rules?

This has nothing to do with worrying about who goes. It doesn't matter what the result is. I don't care at this point. Get over that. A channel and a company are deliberately taking people's money having misled them on what they are voting for. That is a serious issue.

You seem to be willing to justify that so long as you get the result you want, without any thought of the ethics of that. People have spent money voting for something that they have, mid-way through the vote, changed the rules on.

:clap1: Can you imagine of Frankie,Ricky,Sam and James were up ? it would be totally different ........ maybe Hayden hasn't voted,but lots of people have

They might. But I seriously doubt it. Even in the Britain's Got Talent link I posted, Ofcom reported that ITV did not deliberately mislead viewers but what they did had the effect of doing so. That is what Channel 5 have done here. Most people voting were led to believe it would be an eviction like any other and the person with the fewest votes would go. If they said they were doing this before lines opened, then fair enough, but they can't change what you've been voting on and are still voting on mid-way through a vote.

If they have misled viewers, which many of us feel they have, then they can at least be investigated on this.

And the fact that they have not confirmed or denied this makes it worse. Are Big Blagger and BB Spy right? Usually they are. But as of yet Channel 5 haven't announced anything, so voters are left not knowing what they're voting for now.

Honestly they change the rules all the time and get away with it

Farrah's eviction, Evander's eviction, Ryan's eviction etc. They've got away with it plenty of times with VTS and will do it again this time.

Where was this outcry when Evander was evicted despite not having the fewest votes? Or Farrah? Or Ryan?

It has everything to do with who's p imo thats why people are kicking up a fuss on both sides - the ones who think James is in danger or the ones who think Bear/Marnie is in danger.

Emma did say that they would be given choices etc and that it would climax on friday, so they haven't actually misled

I can't remember these situations exactly (or Ryan at all actually). But I suspect the rules were actually made clear there, and the voters were not at all misled. If you can correct me on that, then please do so.

You really must understand this.

Here's an example... When Vanessa was evicted over Makosi, Makosi had more votes to be evicted than Vanessa did. But the production made it very clear BEFORE lines opened that the two with the most votes would then face a housemate vote, and the HMs would decide which of the two would go. The voters were not misled in this situation.

No, it has do with the fact that they are in violation of trading standards. You need to show that voters were misled in the examples you gave. I can't recall those situations. My understanding is that the producers made it very clear before lines opened what would happen in all those situations, they have NOT done that here.

She did not say anything about the specific rules of this vote. Nor did they when the lines opened.

If you can show me where she did, then do so.

Otherwise they are in violation of trading standards by misleading people on what they were actually voting for, which most of us felt was a normal eviction in which the person with the fewest votes would be evicted.

Did they specifically state that the person with the fewest votes would go? Because unless they did, as much as I'm not comfortable either with them hiding things, I'd still say that technically no rules have been broken.

And I think the difference with the Makosi/Vanessa example you gave, is that it was 'Vote to Evict' so they had to make it clear that the person with the most votes might not be evicted. In this scenario it's 'Vote to Save', and the person with the most votes will be saved.

This is also true, there's no real norm anymore, not enough for people to assume there won't be any twists involved anyway. It seems with some series there's a twist every week virtually. And that's the thing, did BB state definitively that the HM with the fewest votes would be evicted... or is that just what people would assume would happen?

Nothing on BB vote page either

Ryan happened in BB17, the series just gone. He most likely got more votes than Sam (and maybe Laura) to save yet he was evicted over them both.

I totally agree with you that C5 should announce what's happening before the vote, but the fact they've got away with it on numerous occasions before just shows they can get away with it again and there's nothing we can do about it now.

Every eviction so far, the person with the fewest votes has gone. If they are to change that procedure then they need to make it very clear and do so when the lines open. They have not done that at all. As I pointed out in that Ofcom ruling on ITV, ITV may not have intended to mislead but they had the effect of doing that. That is what Channel 5/BB Production would have done here imo.

I believe, whether they intended it or not, they have misled viewers and it is a legitimate complaint. If they had announced what was going on before lines opened then fair enough, but they did not do that. You have to make clear what people are voting on. If what you're saying is correct then they could if they wanted, save whoever has the most votes, and do this eviction with the bottom 3 out of 4! It's ridiculous.


No, I've pointed out the difference already. The difference was that the voters were told very clearly what the rules were BEFORE lines opened.

They have, if this story is true, changed what we are voting for in the MIDDLE of a vote.

Then they should have made clear that we were voting for one or two people to be safe out of the four. You can't just say the top 2 will be safe when there's only 5 hours left to vote, with the lines having been open 18 hours already.


They have not, not in my memory at least, ever changed what the rules of a vote were as the vote is going on. They can change the rules of noms if they want because that is to do with inside the house and no money is being spent, but they have taken money from voters and are now revealing there's more to the vote than they had originally told us. That is blatantly misleading.

I had switched off at that point. Did Channel 5/Production make it clear there would be a bottom 3 and that one of those 3 would be evicted BEFORE the lines opened?

I just reported the Wankers to ofcom

There's probably something in the terms and conditions which allows them to **** **** up.

What I know is going to infuriate me about this is that Chloe and one of Marnie or Bear may end up in the bottom 2 and everyone will just rejoice and act like nothing dodgy has gone on here.

BB Spy say Channel 5 have confirmed it

http://www.bbspy.co.uk/cbb18/news/08...ame-of-chance/