[bots]

It is actually that simple. It doesn't matter if Tila's ejection seems unfair to some, it doesn't matter if she was ejected for something said in whatever circumstances 2 years ago. BB doesn't need to provide any details. If people don't like it, they shouldn't watch the show.

It is a simple fact that if a sufficient number of Viacom sponsors threatened to withdraw their funding, the channel would have no choice but to comply or cease operation. If sufficient public protest groups lend their weight to a cause, it will be followed by the channel.

These things happen irrespective of implied BB rules or expected behaviour. I'm struggling that this concept is so hard for those complaining to understand.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

It is actually that simple. It doesn't matter if Tila's ejection seems unfair to some, it doesn't matter if she was ejected for something said in whatever circumstances 2 years ago. BB doesn't need to provide any details. If people don't like it, they shouldn't watch the show.

It is a simple fact that if a sufficient number of Viacom sponsors threatened to withdraw their funding, the channel would have no choice but to comply or cease operation. If sufficient public protest groups lend their weight to a cause, it will be followed by the channel.

These things happen irrespective of implied BB rules or expected behaviour. I'm struggling that this concept is so hard for those complaining to understand.

i'm a Viacom supporter(because i watch plenty of Viacom/CBS shows), so i get to have an opinion about it, and i get to disagree if i want to.

[Robodog]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

It is actually that simple. It doesn't matter if Tila's ejection seems unfair to some, it doesn't matter if she was ejected for something said in whatever circumstances 2 years ago. BB doesn't need to provide any details. If people don't like it, they shouldn't watch the show.

It is a simple fact that if a sufficient number of Viacom sponsors threatened to withdraw their funding, the channel would have no choice but to comply or cease operation. If sufficient public protest groups lend their weight to a cause, it will be followed by the channel.

These things happen irrespective of implied BB rules or expected behaviour. I'm struggling that this concept is so hard for those complaining to understand.

Ooh get you!

It's not 'a simple fact' that a number of viacom sponsors threatened to withdraw their funding over this. I've never heard of that, nor has anyone else i've asked. No need to be patronising about it whether it's common knowledge or not.

Anyway, there are STILL unclear guidelines from BB as to what HMs can or cannot say in the future outside the BB house, so how do we go forward from this without repeating history unless BB spells it out clearly first on ALL 'off limits' subjects?

BB has a duty to be clear about it's guidelines for HMs opinions, not just INSIDE but also now OUTSIDE the house. Surely people asking for BB's clarity on that important subject is not a concept you are struggling to understand as well?