[Northern Monkey]

Or should we hear them and challenge them if we disagree?
So no more controversial comedy after 9pm incase somebody gets offended?
I thought the whole idea behind BB was that if we don't like a housemate for whatever reason be it their views or personality or whatever then we get to vote them out?
People should not be forcefully ejected imo because of their opinions.The world would be very boring if we all like robots thought exactly the same way.
BB ejecting people and hiding their conversations is straight up censorship.Should this apply to all genres of television and media?
If not then don't censor BB in this way.
They are treating the viewers like special snowflakes who need to be in safe spaces and can't handle an opposing opinion.

[Ashley.]

It wasn't an opinion, it was a thoughtless joke... I don't think there was any truth in it at all.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

At the end of the day it's not a public forum, it's an entertainment show. They have editorial control and have every right to decide what type of language/discussion they want or don't want in the show.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

It wasn't an opinion, it was a thoughtless joke... I don't think there was any truth in it at all.

So controversial comedy should'nt be allowed on TV?

[Jordan.]

Wow yeah what a boring world if everyone thought the same. We need all that entertaining murder and discrimination.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Wow yeah what a boring world if everyone thought the same. We need all that entertaining murder and discrimination.

Well there are many TV shows which feature murder.Why are they not banned but biggins joke or opinion is?You can say that murder on telly is fictional but not all of it is.Some is based on real events.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

So controversial comedy should'nt be allowed on TV?

his comments around aids were not comedy and were not a joke. People are treating things in isolation where the producers made it quite clear that it was a cumulative issue, where he had been warned numerous times and chose to ignore the warnings.

[alex_front2]

Banning controversial opinions won't be enough. When the PC opinion is expressed and someone merely shakes their head to convey disagreement in future that will be tantamount to a hate crime.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

his comments around aids were not comedy and were not a joke. People are treating things in isolation where the producers made it quite clear that it was a cumulative issue, where he had been warned numerous times and chose to ignore the warnings.

His comments on Aids were a theory.Very possibly a wrong theory but still a theory and he even included that it was a scientist who told him this.Should theories be banned if they are controversial?

[bots]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

His comments on Aids were a theory.Very possibly a wrong theory but still a theory and he even included that it was a scientist who told him this.Should theories be banned if they are controversial?

if you consistently push bigoted views without there being appropriate balance, it cannot be allowed to persist on a public platform like TV. Surely that's obvious

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

if you consistently push bigoted views without there being appropriate balance, it cannot be allowed to persist on a public platform like TV. Surely that's obvious

Surely that balance comes from anyone in the house who disagrees with him in a conversation?If everyone agrees with him C5 only has to say that a housemate's views do not reflect the views on Channel 5.

[jaxie]

I think the OP has a point to call this into question. If we are going to be a society with freedom of speech don't we have to hear controversial opinions to be able to oppose them? If we won't hear them, are we not guilty of censorship?

[camertone]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Or should we hear them and challenge them if we disagree?
So no more controversial comedy after 9pm incase somebody gets offended?
I thought the whole idea behind BB was that if we don't like a housemate for whatever reason be it their views or personality or whatever then we get to vote them out?
People should not be forcefully ejected imo because of their opinions.The world would be very boring if we all like robots thought exactly the same way.
BB ejecting people and hiding their conversations is straight up censorship.Should this apply to all genres of television and media?
If not then don't censor BB in this way.
They are treating the viewers like special snowflakes who need to be in safe spaces and can't handle an opposing opinion.

banning opinions no, banning racism yes.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Surely that balance comes from anyone in the house who disagrees with him in a conversation?If everyone agrees with him C5 only has to say that a housemate's views do not reflect the views on Channel 5.

with the greatest respect to Bear and his fellows, he is not blessed with the capacity to balance an argument. Nor should it be his responsibility. These folk know the score when they go on these type of shows. Biggins was trying his luck, there was nothing unintentional about it ... he tried it ... got warned ... continued to do it ... got warned ... continued to do it ... and got thrown out.

He had every opportunity to adjust his behaviour, but chose not to. There is no-one to blame but himself for his own stupidity.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I think the OP has a point to call this into question. If we are going to be a society with freedom of speech don't we have to hear controversial opinions to be able to oppose them? If we won't hear them, are we not guilty of censorship?

Exactly.We can get rid of him.The whole point of the show.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream

At the end of the day it's not a public forum, it's an entertainment show. They have editorial control and have every right to decide what type of language/discussion they want or don't want in the show.

Nail on the head - It's not about what should or shouldn't be "allowed" on TV with something like Big Brother. It's a show owned by a private company and they can decide to do whatever they want with it. If they think it's in the financial interests of the show to remove someone for ANY reason then that is entirely their business (literally).

Now, if a news channel was heavily restricting / cutting out people's comments I'd be far more concerned.

I guess think of it this way: If you're out in a public space, like a park for example, and you hear someone saying something that you don't like. That's tough ****. You can challenge them on it / try to debate with them but you can't order them to leave the park. That's the right to free speech. If a guest in YOUR house starts saying something you don't like or don't want to hear, you can kick him out on his arse. You can use reasonable physical force to remove that person, even, or call the authorities. That person can't whine about his right to free speech in YOUR HOME - he has NO such right.

The BB house belongs to the production company. It is their property. It is their show. Full stop, end of discussion, it is not a free speech issue.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

if you consistently push bigoted views without there being appropriate balance, it cannot be allowed to persist on a public platform like TV. Surely that's obvious

Mary Whitehouse would be so proud of you trying to shut down,censor and block anything other than mainstream PC views.

Youtube video

[user104658]

Just to add on another level: Yes I would PREFER that they kept people in and let it kick off naturally. I quite enjoy seeing these people destroy their "national treasure" status and 40 year log career .

But it's still not up to us. Well, it is in a sense I suppose, as the "customers" we can vote with our feet and simply stop watching... but if the company believes that they'd lose more revenue by showing this stuff than by shutting it down then again... that's their decision.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I think the OP has a point to call this into question. If we are going to be a society with freedom of speech don't we have to hear controversial opinions to be able to oppose them? If we won't hear them, are we not guilty of censorship?

I do agree with that (above and beyond my arguments above) but then there's a lot of confusion there, too. A lot of people mistakenly believe that having their controversial opinions opposed is the same as having them stifled or censored and get all huffy about it. They incorrectly believe that "their right to free speech" involves the right to state their opinions WITHOUT opposition. Just take a look in Serious Debates .

[VanessaFeltz.]

The reason i stopped watching was we dont get to see live feeds or we dont get balanced highlights show. These are not real people anymore, they are "characters" that bb decides to create.

What we need is we need to see all housemates and everything they say, pure truth. They literally knew what kind of person Andrew was yet they decided to bring him to the house just to eject him couple of days later.

We should be able to see what happens and we should have a fair say about who gets the boot and people shouldnt be ejected for silly reasons.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

It wasn't an opinion, it was a thoughtless joke... I don't think there was any truth in it at all.

Yes he attacked Jews


I am Glad he was Ejected
I hate him

[arista]

"Mary Whitehouse would be so proud of you trying"


Bob - Bollocks
Ken Livingston had a Job on LBC
he also attacked Jews
LBC had to Sack him


That old woman from the past
if you dug her up and brought her back
she would not understand all this

[armand.kay]

Bb can be a bit ott sometimes most other show just let problamatic chicks stay stay and get clocked by other cast members.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by MelihV

The reason i stopped watching was we dont get to see live feeds or we dont get balanced highlights show. These are not real people anymore, they are "characters" that bb decides to create.

What we need is we need to see all housemates and everything they say, pure truth. They literally knew what kind of person Andrew was yet they decided to bring him to the house just to eject him couple of days later.

We should be able to see what happens and we should have a fair say about who gets the boot and people shouldnt be ejected for silly reasons.

I agree with that and I much preferred early BB (especially) seasons 1 - 7 than what we have now... but essentially I think we need to accept that it's a different sort of show now and closer to semi-scripted reality shows with guided / set up situations, and enjoy it as that, if you enjoy that sort of show. I'm quite enjoying this series because it seems to be sort of fully embracing that now, instead of trying to be "somewhere in the middle" which just doesn't work.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by arista

That old woman from the past
if you dug her up and brought her back
she would not understand all this

Ban this person right now. Kick him off the forum for suggesting grave robbing and digging up dead people. I have never been so offended in all my life.
This is a disgrace.