[bots]

Originally Posted by Robodog

Sadly it isn't just straw clutching as the implications here are very serious and yet very unclear, so it needs debate.

I say unclear because what BB has done is remove a HM for expressing controversial views online years before entering the BB house, but not told even told the viewers what those views are. Nor has BB spelled out EXACTLY what is acceptable/unacceptable for HMs to say in general as we go forward from this point onwards.

Does this mean we are now in a new phase of BB whereby ANY HM can be removed at any time if someone, somewhere finds a posting they made years ago that can cause offence to somebody?

And does it stop exclusively at Hitler?

Can a HM be removed if they once said they can see the good side of Pol Pot? Or Genghis Khan? Or Harold Shipman? Or fox hunting? Or illegal drug addiction?

What if they simply made a really cutting edge joke like one of Frankie Boyle's?

BB need to be crystal clear about this, not leave future HMs at the mercy of their vague guidelines and poor research.

Of course the freedom of speech debate will be ignited in these circumstances because there is no clarity on the subject of precisely what you can and can't say in the eyes of BB now - either inside OR outside of the house!

But as Jack said in his post on this thread - BB should have done their research better and sorted this out LONG before letting a HM enter the house only to remove her 24 hours later. BB have been appalling in their handling of this. And right now - we are STILL none the wiser about PRECISELY what you can/can't say in the future!

It's a total mess.

The general public, and channel sponsors dictate what is considered acceptable. I have no doubt they were aiming to create some controversy, but there is a fine line between controversial and unacceptable, and clearly the UK public and channel sponsors made their views clear, forcing BB into the action it took.