Skip to main content

Was anyone-else bothered by BB broadcasting Laura's comments about her boyfriend cheating on her (and naming him, no less)?
I don't wish to defend the guy if Laura's story's true, but that "if" is of course part of the problem here: we've only heard Laura's side of it. Alex has just been labelled a cheat on a programme watched my millions, and he hasn't got the right to reply.

My real problem, though, is that normally HM conversations about friends and family bring down the birdsong and aeroplane noises faster than you can say "Ofcom". So why did BB think it OK to "name and shame" somone this time?

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Reference:
Alex has just been labelled a cheat on a programme watched my millions, and he hasn't got the right to reply. My real problem, though, is that normally HM conversations about friends and family bring down the birdsong and aeroplane noises faster than you can say "Ofcom". So why did BB think it OK to "name and shame" somone this time?
He has a right to reply in the next rag that chases him and they don't put bird song into HL's..
stonks
Reference stonks Today at 00:13:
 they don't put bird song into HL's..
My point was that such comments wouldn't normally even be broadcast on LF - BB would make use of the time delay to edit it out. As this was on HLs, they can't even use the excuse that "it just slipped out unnoticed" -  BB must have consciously edited it in.
As I said: in the past, BB has had extremely strong controls on comments regarding friends and family of HMs (usually enforced by Ofcom), so why did they think it appropriate to "name and shame" Alex?
Eugene's Lair

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×