|
|
Post by Laurence on Aug 7, 2006 10:16:01 GMT 1
media.guardian.co.uk/Thought this issue deserves a new thread to follow all the developments. That is a HUGE number for a TV programme - and considering they all deal with financial matters and ripping the public off it's even more serious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 7, 2006 10:48:18 GMT 1
Where can I add my complaint please  |
|
|
|
Post by Laurence on Aug 7, 2006 10:50:06 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by LittleChristmasTurkey on Aug 7, 2006 12:15:50 GMT 1
My complaint to Ofcom:
I feel I must complain about Big Brother's latest 'twist' as I feel here has been a breach of a contract between myself as a viewer and Endemol. Having spent large quantities of money to evict housemates on the understanding that they would then not be eligible to win the prize, I find out that the money I have spent has been wasted, as this was not the case at all.
If Endemol had announced that the evicted housemates would have the chance to return to the house at the beginning of the series, I would not have a problem with this. Similarly, if the returning housemate was not eligible to win, again, I would not have a problem.
Unfortunately, neither of these is the case. I suggest therefore that Endemol have breached an implied contract (definition: An agreement which is not reduced to writing but is created on the basis of the behavior of the parties which suggests that they are acting under an agreement) and committed fraud (definition: artifice used to cheat or deceive another person whereby that person acts upon it to the loss of his property or to his legal injury).
I would like a full investigation to be carried out into the activities of Endemol, including the profits reaped by fraudulent activities, ideally leading to the refund of all monies spent by everyone who has voted for housemates to be evicted.
|
|
|
|
Post by LittleChristmasTurkey on Aug 7, 2006 12:25:03 GMT 1
In fact, having just looked at the Big Brother website, the contract the viewers had with Endemol is not an implied contract at all; it's down in writing. I quote:
An implied contract ias still legally binding though, so whether it's there in writing or not is irrelevant: Endemol have still broken their contract with us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 7, 2006 12:30:21 GMT 1
Nice letter littlec.
Here's my letter to endemol.
You suck!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 7, 2006 12:31:35 GMT 1
Cheers homesy, oh and I reckon the only way nikki agreed to do the show was if she was in the running to win, I mean why go back in the house, and lose your current income again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 7, 2006 12:43:14 GMT 1
Email to ofcom, email to channel 4 and now endemol |
|
|
|
Post by LittleChristmasTurkey on Aug 7, 2006 12:46:34 GMT 1
I couldn't find a complaints line to either Channel 4 or Endemol. The only thing I could find for channel 4 was an email address which said 'we will not look at your email for 4 weeks' which is just utter crap, and for Endemol an enqiries about jobs thing.
What addresses have you emailed?
|
|
|
|
Post by ChartFreak on Aug 7, 2006 13:27:03 GMT 1
My complaint.... I think point 3 in particular will be a sticking point for Ofcom
We feel we must make a complaint about the latest ‘twist’ in the current series of Big Brother on Channel 4. The twist involves a public vote on which evicted housemate should be reintroduced to the house with a possibility of winning. I object to this for the following reasons:
1. The public have been mislead. In all previous series of Big Brother, housemates once evicted are not allowed to return. I believe this has set a precedent that should be adhered to. The public have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds voting for what they believed would be permanent eviction. At no point were they told that housemates could return – if they had I would not have an objection.
2. The Big Brother rules (on the Big Brother website) state “once a housemate leaves they forfeit any claim to the prize money.” We are now being told that on this occasion this fundamental rule does not apply.
3. The rules also state that contestants cannot be affiliated with Endemol or Channel 4. One former contestant in particular, Nikki Grahame, has since leaving the house signed a contract with Endemol to produce a series entitled ‘Princess Nikki’. Surely this becomes a conflict of interest.
4. Contestants are forbidden from having any contact with the outside world, in order to stop them from having any unfair advantage. However, all the former housemates have had access to the press coverage of themselves and all current housemates. They therefore are aware what the public like and dislike about them and the other contestants. They also know who is favourite to win. This does not make for a fair contest.
We would like to request a full inquiry into this matter. We do not imagine any of Endemol’s actions are illegal as such, but they have broken an agreement with the fans which has been established over the last seven years, I feel it is unfair and that the public have been mislead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 7, 2006 13:41:44 GMT 1
Nice letter, sums up the main points brilliantly!
|
|
penny
Member
*If you don't blow your own trumpet, someone else will use it as a spittoon*
Posts: 2,533
|
Post by penny on Aug 7, 2006 15:42:00 GMT 1
Would not surprise me if by Friday Endemol have to backtrack and say the returning evictee will NOT after all be eligible to win the prize money. I can imaging their lawyers are running round like headless chickens at the moment - they HAVE duped the public who vote to evict on the assumption they are voting for that person to leave and not return. Would they still pay good money to vote if Endemol said Vote to evict x or y..........but there is a chance they may return at some later stage !! I doubt it ! The whole programme has descended into farce now - glad I haven`t bothered voting this series !
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 7, 2006 16:01:19 GMT 1
I have not voted since the 1st series, but I can see why people would be hopping mad over this whole situation. The thing is, say they change it and say they cant win the 100k, I wonder if people like Nikki would pull out of the running. I was reading they are contracted to do certain things for bb while it is running, but they only get £30 a week or something? So Nikki could back out and lose the £30? Mind you, she is prolly nutty enough to want to go back in, give her a few more magazine deals when she comes back out. However I do think she wont be voted back in. Whoever votes against her may get the anti nikki voters against them though |
|
Da Quen B
Member
*She of many holidays*
Walkin' In Rhythm
Posts: 15,690
|
Post by Da Quen B on Aug 7, 2006 18:20:13 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Maximo Mark on Aug 7, 2006 18:39:29 GMT 1
Good. What they've done stinks!
|
|
|
|
Post by ManicKangaroo on Aug 7, 2006 22:59:15 GMT 1
1196 according to ITV |
|
|
|
Post by ChartFreak on Aug 7, 2006 23:37:30 GMT 1
1196 according to ITV Considering only 259 complained about Kinga's "bottle stopper" routine last year, that's pretty impressive! |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 8, 2006 9:29:12 GMT 1
Hopefully it will keep on growing and bb will do something or ofcom will tell them off at some point?
|
|
|
|
Post by LittleChristmasTurkey on Aug 8, 2006 9:30:25 GMT 1
Over 1500 now... |
|
|
|
Post by Laurence on Aug 8, 2006 9:35:47 GMT 1
They try and defend it by saying 'All profits will go to charity'.  First of all, do we believe them? And secondly, what they are doing is making sure someone like Nikki is in for the final week and they get a huge PAID vote then. The best thing that could happen is Ofcom forcing BB to give a huge slice of this year's profits to charity as a fine!  |
|
Well over 1,000 complaints have now been made to Ofcom alone!
First of all, do we believe them? 