[Yaki da]

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.


http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bro...0/harmoffence/

They are clearly in breach of 2.15 as they did not make the rules of the vote clear at "the time an invitation to participate is broadcast". On the contrary, it is now 19: 45 pm and we still do not know what we are voting for exactly. Channel 5 have supposedly confirmed to fan sites that the bottom 2 will face a challenge but there is no mention on their website and there was no mention of this at the end of last night's show when lines opened.

[Pete.]

"No comment"

[T*]

Originally Posted by Pete.

"No comment"

everytime C5 does it it makes me so ****in angry

[smudgie]

How much clearer can vote to save be, most votes get saved
I see no lies here.

[reece(:]

Let it go

[Jordan.]

Report ha

[Jarvio]

Same thing happened in January CBB with Winston's eviction. I posted about it on here and nobody gave a crap. I even emailed BB and they replied to me with some bureaucratic nonesense, trying to make out that they are being fair.

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by smudgie

How much clearer can vote to save be, most votes get saved
I see no lies here.

Are you a moron? It says the rules must be made clear... At what point did they make it clear that only 2 out of 4 people would safe and that either of the bottom 2 including the one with more votes could still go?

Every voter until 4 pm today was under the assumption that the person with the fewest votes would go. That is why Chloe was until that point a massive odds on favourite to go, but is now evens.

Only at around 4 - 5 PM was the fact that a bottom 2 would face a challenge made clear to voters who had been voting since 10 PM last night. The Ofcom rules clearly state "These rules must be clear and appropriately made known" and "stated at the time an invitation to participate is broadcast"

When did they tell us that the bottom 2 would face a challenge? About 18 hours after they made the invitation to participate.

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by Jarvio

Same thing happened in January CBB with Winston's eviction. I posted about it on here and nobody gave a crap. I even emailed BB and they replied to me with some bureaucratic nonesense, trying to make out that they are being fair.

If I had been here then, I would have agreed with you. If that is what happened.

Trying to take it up with them is useless. They will only answer to Ofcom who people should complain to.

I'm opposed to complaining about things that cause "Offense". But this is the sort of thing Ofcom should be there for.

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by reece(:

Let it go

Nope. Duty to inform people of Channel 5 being in violation of the broadcasting code and how they can complain if they want to.

If you're not interested, stay out of the thread.

[Headie]

Let's be honest you're all kicking up a fuss now but you'll be cheering and gloating when Bear ends up being saved and James goes :/

[reece(:]

Originally Posted by Yaki da

Nope. Duty to inform people of Channel 5 being in violation of the broadcasting code and how they can complain if they want to.

If you're not interested, stay out of the thread.

I'm free to comment on how ridiculous this is, but thanks your concern

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by Hayden

Let's be honest you're all kicking up a fuss now but you'll be cheering and gloating when Bear ends up being saved and James goes :/

Wouldn't matter to me one way or another. The case I'm making wouldn't let anyone know who my favourite is or isn't. A lot of people seem to think this is being done deliberately to get James out and are complaining for that reason.

It is bad enough that they get away with changing the nomination rules every other week (which they can do, even though they shouldn't), but to mislead voters is a disgrace and against all broadcasting and ethical standards.

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by reece(:

I'm free to comment on how ridiculous this is, but thanks your concern

And yet you are incapable of making an argument. You just make useless comments. Go away if you can't debate an issue.

The rules are clearly written there and Channel 5 are quite clearly in violation of them.

If you don't like people drawing attention to that, then you let it go and bugger off.

[hijaxers]

Originally Posted by Yaki da

Wouldn't matter to me one way or another. The case I'm making wouldn't let anyone know who my favourite is or isn't. A lot of people seem to think this is being done deliberately to get James out and are complaining for that reason.

It is bad enough that they get away with changing the nomination rules every other week (which they can do, even though they shouldn't), but to mislead voters is a disgrace and against all broadcasting and ethical standards.

I think no matter what fuss you make - they are engineering James to go

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by hijaxers

I think no matter what fuss you make - they are engineering James to go

I don't care who goes. What I care about is them taking money in violation of Broadcasting codes.

Why do people look on at this behaviour and act as though it would be fine as long as they get the result they want? It's got nothing to do with anything.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Yaki da

Nope. Duty to inform people of Channel 5 being in violation of the broadcasting code and how they can complain if they want to.

If you're not interested, stay out of the thread.

well said.

it would be interesting to look into the betting side of it cause it seems morally wrong to me.

and they better say who was bottom before i judge my level of outrage.

[thisisdanny]

You already made a thread about this - can you not just add it to that? Bored now

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by thisisdanny

You already made a thread about this - can you not just add it to that? Bored now

You mean you just don't care that Channel 5 is violating broadcasting and ethical standards.

If you are bored then do not enter such threads.

The fact is the vote opened at 10 pm last night. Only at 9 pm the next day did Emma confirm that the top 2 would be safe.

By Ofcom's broadcasting code that puts them in violation of it.

Again...

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.

It saddens me to see people time and time and time again allow these people to get away with this sort of thing. Though this is by far the worst thing I have seen them do. People will complain to Ofcom over someone thinking bisexuals just can't make their mind up, but the very thing Ofcom should exist to protect viewers/voters from they ignore.

[Jarvio]

I agree with the OP tbh.

So many other members here seem to be fine with (and even at times encouraging) BB to violate these rules. And when people's money is involved, it is even more ****ed up.

If any of these members actually pay to vote on BB, then I am amazed at how stupid they are. This has happened on the show more than once, and people are stupid enough to think "it wont happen to my favourite HM" - it might!!! Then you wouldn't be so happy about it, would you?

BB should never deceive the public when money is involved, no matter which HMs are involved! Yeah I hated Winston and wanted him gone that week, but if he didn't get the least amount of votes, then he shouldn't have gone, solely for that reason.

[Yaki da]

I'm afraid people just don't care anymore. They'll complain over words that offend them being broadcast but things that are totally corrupt or extremely dodgy they just accept without questioning.

The rules could not be clearer and they did not inform viewers of exactly what they were voting for. They did not make it clear which the broadcasting code says they must. For 22 hours until Emma Willis informed us that there would be a bottom 2 most people were voting under the assumption that the top 3 would be safe and the person with the fewest votes would be evicted.

Now the person who came third could be evicted over the person who got the fewest. That should have been made known before voting lines ever opened.

[Yaki da]

Right, can all you people who thought James was out and it was fixed now be quiet. The BB producers don't care. What they have done however is mislead the voters on what it was they were voting for. In clear and obvious breach of broadcasting standards.

Unfortunately because James is now safe, most of you will not give a ****, because the producers can get away with anything so long as it doesn't lead to a favourite with the forums going.

But ethical standards have been trampled over with this and people should draw attention to this fact.

[Yaki da]

Imagine that situation... They've misled the voters, in violation of broadcasting codes. And Marnie who almost certainly came 3rd and had the overwhelming majority of HMs wanting to save her could have actually gone.

This is what you have allowed this show to become. You care more about old homosexuals thinking that bisexuals can't make their minds up than about them misleading voters and screwing over contestants.

[Yaki da]

I just saw this post on DS and rolled my eyes...

OFCOM and Emma
Emma Willis has just put the integrity of Big Brother in question.
I no longer have faith that the telephone votes are fair. The phone votes cannot be fair and impartial if the host is clearly using her influence to interfere with the voting process. I can't trust that the producers (Emma's work colleagues) don't share her views and won't therefore do whatever they can to ensure they get the outcome they wish for.
If ever there is a case for OFCOM to look into, then this is it.

Actually no, the case for OFCOM was them misleading the voters on what they were actually voting for. The lines were open for 23 hours and 45 minutes and only in the last 45 minutes were voters told by a member of the production team (Emma at the start of the show) that their votes would only save the top 2 and that the 3rd placed housemate could be evicted. So for 23 hours many voters would have believed that the person with the fewest votes would be evicted as per usual. But Emma having a rant is what these people complain about.

[Mystic Mock]

I'm interested to know who really got the least votes between Marnie and Chloe considering it was only supposed to be 2% between them.