Does not look like anyone has posted this news yet but Ellis has been removed from the house.
I clicked on the Tweet and she looks to have posted some inflammatory 9/11 comment on Twitter.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Do they not do these checks before putting them in? Shambles really.
Anyway i hear the posts are 4/5 years old, making her 14/15 at the time. Havenât seen hw bad the post is, but is it not possibly a bit harsh punishing someone for something they posted when they were a child? Iâm sure most people did/said dickheadish things when they were a kid that they now regret.
Crunchy Nuts posted:Do they not do these checks before putting them in? Shambles really.
Anyway i hear the posts are 4/5 years old, making her 14/15 at the time. Havenât seen hw bad the post is, but is it not possibly a bit harsh punishing someone for something they posted when they were a child? Iâm sure most people did/said dickheadish things when they were a kid that they now regret.
I agree, on all points
Whoever researched the HMs need sacking.
Crunchy Nuts posted:Do they not do these checks before putting them in? Shambles really.
Anyway i hear the posts are 4/5 years old, making her 14/15 at the time. Havenât seen hw bad the post is, but is it not possibly a bit harsh punishing someone for something they posted when they were a child? Iâm sure most people did/said dickheadish things when they were a kid that they now regret.
Exactly Crunchy 
Tweet was from a deleted Twitter account but also read it was deleted when she entered the house.
Should have been noticed before she was selected
Was terrible tweet - referring to terrorists from 9/11 as sm*lly *akis
Disgusting
Saint posted:
Was terrible tweet - referring to terrorists from 9/11 as sm*lly *akis
I could hardly believe what I had read when I saw the Tweet, so much so, I read it a second time just to make sure.
Apparently it's not the only offensive tweet 
Why do they do that?
Crunchy Nuts posted:Do they not do these checks before putting them in? Shambles really.
Anyway i hear the posts are 4/5 years old, making her 14/15 at the time. Havenât seen hw bad the post is, but is it not possibly a bit harsh punishing someone for something they posted when they were a child? Iâm sure most people did/said dickheadish things when they were a kid that they now regret.
Funnily enough, if I'd had to bet on the HM most likely to be ejected, it would have been Ellis - only for her more recent comments displaying other prejudices (and there's a lot of stuff coming out about that now, too... 
).
As for HM checks: Endemol have always really just played lip-service to HM background checks, and TBH I've never been able to make up my mind as to whether it's predominantly cock-up (they're just very bad at it and don't really care), or conspiracy (they know full well about the HMs' backgrounds but stick them in anyway to stir things up... ).
I first became fully aware as to how really bad it was with BB7: prior to that series' launch, C4 leaked to the press that they were unhappy because a couple of shortlisted HMs had convictions for violence. Endemol's response was not apologise, but to take a pop at C4 for interfering with their programme-making! The point being that if C4 hadn't made it public, Endemol would almost certainly have tried to force those HMs onto the show anyway! 
Then there was the Dawn debacle: many FMs from the old C4 Forum days will know that I've posted in the past about how Endemol did a hatchet job on Dawn (even to the extent of lying to the police! ) to cover up the fact that she'd been having a running battle with the producers during the first week. One of the main concerns Dawn had was that many of her fellow HMs had obvious mental health issues and shouldn't have been on the show in the first place. Of course Shahbaz was a clear case of Endemol not checking HMs properly , but then Nikki also admitted much later that she lied her way right through the health checks...
@Eugene's Lair Do you have proof of lying to the Police by Endemol?
If not be careful what you print
Saint posted:@Eugene's Lair Do you have proof of lying to the Police by Endemol?
If not be careful what you print
I'd have to scour for it (and we're probably talking about long-deleted news items), but it was well reported at the time.
Basically, Dawn made claims of false imprisonment against Endemol, but when the police called round to investigate, they were told that the tapes she claimed would prove it didn't exist. Not only was this not true, but if Endemol really hadn't kept the tapes they'd have been in breach of broadcasting rules. My understanding is that the police let it rest after the tapes were finally released (it took weeks... ).
But if a crime was committed and someone complained?
Why no prosecution?
Saint posted:But if a crime was committed and someone complained?
Why no prosecution?
Can't remember the full details, but I think it boiled down to the contract Dawn (and all other HMs) signed meant BB were covered. Every HM assumes that if they say they want to leave, they can go there and then, but in practise BB string it out for as long as possible, ironically usually citing their duty of care. In the case of Emily's ejection from BB8, she was apparently kept in the DR for hours until her mother could drive down from Bristol (in the middle of the night!) to collect her - which does make you wonder why BB couldn't have had put plans into effect first before calling her into the DR...
The concern with Dawn was the strong impression that the delay was so they could stitch her up. Remember the whole "Shut up!" Shut up!" thing? That was because Dawn thought she was being called into the DR to leave the house. What BB managed to successfully sidestep was that the whole ejection thing didn't make a lot of sense. OK, she may have technically broken the rules by receiving a message from the outside world, but it was only encouraging her to walk - so if she didn't want to be there anyway, why not just let her walk? In the cold light of day, it rather felt like BB were trying to cover up the fact that they'd royally screwed-up the launch week with the "Big Brotherhood" task leading to two HMs "walking" (Shahbaz and Dawn), and two of the producers' favourites up for eviction (Bonnie and Glyn). One of the theories was that BB were desperate for Dawn to stay so that she'd be evicted over the other two, and then took it out on her once they realised that wasn't going to fly...
Enthusiastic Contrafibularities posted:Saint posted:
Was terrible tweet - referring to terrorists from 9/11 as sm*lly *akis
I could hardly believe what I had read when I saw the Tweet, so much so, I read it a second time just to make sure.
With tweets like that, she should never have been selected as a HM.
I blame Endemol for not properly researching prospective HMs.
I read @Eugene's Lair comments and IMO they allow contestants in knowing their background history and hoping this in some shape or form will add 'spice' and 'conflict' into the house and boost ratings.
Enthusiastic Contrafibularities posted:
I read @Eugene's Lair comments and IMO they allow contestants in knowing their background history and hoping this in some shape or form will add 'spice' and 'conflict' into the house and boost ratings.
Defo deliberate
There's also a rather distasteful rumour concerning Rodrigo doing the social media rounds
Enthusiastic Contrafibularities posted:Saint posted:
Was terrible tweet - referring to terrorists from 9/11 as sm*lly *akis
I could hardly believe what I had read when I saw the Tweet, so much so, I read it a second time just to make sure.
Had the nationality wrong too....and how did she possibly know that they were odorous....or did she mean odious,but no, she was just being an ignorant,offensive chav....however, my opinion on those who killed so many innocents involves a lot of sweary words,but I'll keep those to myself
Enthusiastic Contrafibularities posted:
Does not look like anyone has posted this news yet but Ellis has been removed from the house.
I clicked on the Tweet and she looks to have posted some inflammatory 9/11 comment on Twitter.
I did,in the BB thread at 3am last nightð
I wonder - given it's so early - if a "reserve" will be called upon?
Yogi19 posted:Enthusiastic Contrafibularities posted:Saint posted:
Was terrible tweet - referring to terrorists from 9/11 as sm*lly *akis
I could hardly believe what I had read when I saw the Tweet, so much so, I read it a second time just to make sure.
With tweets like that, she should never have been selected as a HM.
I blame Endemol for not properly researching prospective HMs.
Viewers had found these tweets while the launch show was still running - the vetting of social media accounts by the producers must be non-existant.
Cold Sweat posted:I wonder - given it's so early - if a "reserve" will be called upon?
I would have thought that very likely.
Perhaps the biggest problem would be how any new HM would fit into the BigCoin task. I can see three possibilities:
1) Bring a new HM in immediately after the first eviction;
2) Make the new HM exempt for this week;
3) Give the new HM Ellis' BigCoin.
Based on tonightâs episode, the fact they handed her a piece of paper with the tweets on and asked her if she wrote them suggested to me that all they had as proof were screen shots that could have been real or fake but couldnât be proved either way. So Iâm pretty sure if sheâd lied and said no then that would have been the end of it and she would have stayed.
Silly girl.