ICSTIS BB7 Ruling

[battybetty]

emptybox said:

I like the way channel 4 says it was an oversight.
They knew exactly what they were doing, and they changed their published terms and conditions soon after.

Exactly emptybox!

I still can't believe they would further insult our intelligence by expecting us to believe their explanation that "...Channel 4 acknowledged that this had been an oversight... ' and that it was "...not intended to mislead its viewer" !! Lying bliddy swines!
We all know that their statement accurately translates as:
"Well, we weighed everything up, took a calculated risk and decided to gamble that the pay off would probably be worth far more than any potential damages we'd be likely to incurr".

Arghhh! So, surprise, surprise they get off with a slapped wrist and all it cost them was the ICSTIS admin expenses! Does anyone actually know what this "substantial" amount amounts to?? Not as bliddy substantial as the profits they quaffed from the great British public I should cocoa!

[remaha]

andy100 said:

Well it just goes to show doesn't it! I don't think a lot of people will be watching or voting next year. I suppose only time will tell!

Well . . . I think it is one of a number of factors that will have an effect on viewing figures next year. However a lot of people that watch it will still get sucked in to voting.

The sad fact this year was that most of us were already too committed to Aisleyne to hit Channel 4 where it hurts the most this year by abstaining from voting.

[remaha]

I think this is interesting. ICSTIS have an Appeals Body, but notice that, according the website, it's only for appeals by service providers and not for the people that made the complaint.

"the independent appeals body
The Independent Appeals Body comprises a Chairman, His Honour Judge Derek Holden, and four lay members. All five are completely independent of icstis and it is their role to hear appeals by service providers in the following circumstances:

against adjudications made by icstis, following an oral hearing
against refusals by icstis to grant applications for permission to provide services in cases where permission from icstis is required
against the imposition of conditions as part of the permission granted to a service provider to operate a service.
For further information about the IAB, contact the Clerk to the Body at [e-mail].

The procedures of the Independent Appeals Body can be found at the end of our Code of Practice."

See for yourself

[malmo58]

It stinks. I lost all respect for C4 and Endemol after they engineered that stitch-up to put the vile Nikki back in, and allowed/encouraged Mr O'Leary and Miss McCall (how I ache to yank out the giblets of the pair of them) to beat the drum for some housemates and do others down, and then when it came out how they indulged in scandalous bias in the editing. This light slap on the wrist is the final insult.

I've no doubt that I'll watch BB8 because I can't help getting sucked into the people-watching, and because BB is just always the focal point of my summer. But I will never vote again.

[remaha]

The adinistratve costs that C4 is expected to have to pay have been estimated variously at between £40,000 and £50,000.

C4 executives/Endemol must be laughing all the way to the bank. They must have made a lot more than that just from the votes cast in favour of Nikki to win in the final week.

[julian]

remaha said:

The adinistratve costs that C4 is expected to have to pay have been estimated variously at between £40,000 and £50,000.

C4 executives/Endemol must be laughing all the way to the bank. They must have made a lot more than that just from the votes cast in favour of Nikki to win in the final week.

Nikki only got about 3.5% of the final vote, if I remember correctly, and I'm sure everyone who voted for her would have quite happily voted for someone else if she wasn't there. The only increase to Endemol's profits would have been the fact that the twist made the last week more interesting and, therefore, attracted more viewers.

Personally I think the main cause of the outrage is that people who voted Nikki out didn't like Nikki and, because they didn't like Nikki, they were upset when she got voted back in. All the stuff about being cheated and misled is, IMO, secondary to the fact that someone they disliked intensely managed to come back with a potential to take votes away from their favourites. I'm sure people who disliked Nikki would have been equally upset whether they actually voted to evict her the first time or not.

It's worth remembering, however, that a large majority of the BB viewers wanted her back in and were probably equally upset when the mass vote prompted by Jayne's misdemeanours had caused her to be voted out in the first place. That vote was pretty unfair of C4 as well, in that it was an arbitrary decision on C4's part to put Nikki and the others up and it is highly unlikely that Nikki would have lost an eviction vote without the vote being split between so many different people.

I'm pretty sure they did the twist to make the show more entertaining and certainly not because they were trying to engineer a win for Nikki. Maybe they made a few mistakes with the legal stuff but I really don't buy into the conspiracy theory. I don't think they were deliberately trying to defraud the public and I think the millions of people who voted this year, even after all the outrage, shows that the people who may be put off voting next year by the incident are not going to make a significant difference.

Just my opinion...

Regards

Julian

[remaha]

3.5% of what though Julian? Anyway, it doesn't matter really, because the revenue from those votes helped Channel 4 and Endemol mitigate their losses from this ruling.

If I remember correctly the amount that was paid to charity from the C4 Edemol/profits on the vote to return was £250,000 and that was definitely on less than 1 million votes as the C4 News Story quoted the number at hundreds of thousands. I think the actual number was about 750,000, which makes the profit paid to charity on each call about 33p.

This means that Channel 4 only need 150,000 people to vote for Nikki in the final week to cover its losses from this ruling. I'm sure she got more than that. So I think Channel 4 should, at the very least, remit these profits to charity.

It's impossible to say that all the people that voted for Nikki in the final week would have voted for someone else if Nikki hadn't been there. We are constantly being told by Nikki fans that the viewing figures dropped when she left, so many of them had probably given up watching.

[Admin]

The twist changed my voting pattern. I voted Nikki out and the twist was contrived imo to get her back in.

Lets not forget Nikki had been up for the public vote three times before that and as is the way of the game the people she was up against were less popular with the voters and so she was saved. So she was NOT that popular in the house.

I did not vote in the twist in protest and if I had not been suporting Aisleyne I would NOT have voted in the final either.

I will not be watching BB8 as a result of the increasing agressive behavour of HM and the show in general. I suppose I must be one of a few who did not enjoy BB during and after BB5 for that reason.

Yes the producers have to try and keep the show fresh, but imo they went to far this year with the twists and having done that this year what will they do next year?

The decison may only be a small slap on the wrists for C4, but at least it is in the public domain that some of the viewers are not happy with the way the show was managed.