[smudgie]

As its vote to save then I think it is fair enough.
No more unfair than allowing the three saved housemates to have killer noms.
I am voting James, I expect it's a good chance he will end up bottom two, as they all have the same chance of being saved in the top two or not then it is all fair, no bias against any of the 4 .

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by smudgie

As its vote to save then I think it is fair enough.

No it is not, unless they tell us that only 2 of the 4 are going to be safe. They did not do that. They led people to believe that the person with the fewest votes would be the one evicted.

That is misleading the voters.

People clearly believed that. Chloe had been a huge favourite to go today. It is now very close in the odds. There could well have been insider trading.

No more unfair than allowing the three saved housemates to have killer noms.

What goes on inside the show is up to the producers. They CANNOT mislead viewers on a phone vote. That puts them in breach of broadcasting standards.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Yaki da

No it is not, unless they tell us that only 2 of the 4 are going to be safe. They did not do that. They led people to believe that the person with the fewest votes would be the one evicted.

That is misleading the voters.

People clearly believed that. Chloe had been a huge favourite to go today. It is now very close in the odds. There could well have been insider trading.



What goes on inside the show is up to the producers. They CANNOT mislead viewers on a phone vote. That puts them in breach of broadcasting standards.

E

Well, as Emma is going inside the house after the person with the most votes is saved I see no problem.
Viewers are not being misled...vote to save, if your votes have saved your favourite then brilliant.after that it is all about playing a game.
If it was a double eviction then fair enough, we get told as it matters