Your claim to fame is this!

I wrote a similar piece over on my blog this afternoon. I only watched the launch show but gave up on the whole thing pretty soon afterwards. Part of me wishes I had watched it so that I could be a little more informed on the issues but most of me is quite happy to be missing it. Andy Duncan's comments were utterly predictable, to the effect... "You'll see Jade confronted with the accusations tonight and then she goes head-to-head with Shilpa in the eviction tomorrow so the public can vote". It will be interesting to see how they react to the Carphone Warehouse decision... may be Channel 4 will sue Jade for loss of earnings!

I submitted a complaint when there was less than 3000! The charge of racism didn't enter into my complaint - that is a matter for the police. I said that they were in breach of section 2.4 of the broadcasting code (check it). Strangely, some of the things I wrote were later echoed by Keith Vaz. Thing is, if the episode I complained about was in breach, then certainly every episode since then has also been in breach of the code. After this number of complaints, Channel 4 and Endemol should in no way profit from tonight's vote, and the programme should have been withdrawn.

Whether it's racism or not, it's still bullying and Big Brother used to step in when things started to look violent. Weren't security guards involved one year? Considering Grace got beaten up for just being a verbal sniper last year, I hate to think what Jade et al will face on their release from the house. It seems especially worrying since the girls won't know what they're about to face and how big this now is. Most people who watch BB still have issues from their own childhood bullying experiences and would love a chance to see some bullies get their come-uppance, especially since most people are unable to punch their own tormentors in the face now that they're big enough to do so. This could end up as therapy for a lot of people but if Davina does her recent 'Let's just gloss over the fact you were out of order in the house' interview then I wouldn't be surprised if a crowd member decided to get revenge in a more direct manner.

The new scuttlebut on the net is that the police will be going in to interview Shilpa this afternoon, and that the retraction and apology were both determined by producers at Endemol. Channel 4 says that the 'profits' from voting will be going to charity, but it turns out that only 10p on each call will be donated...people with tickets for the eviction are being told not to attend.

If the police go in, I can't see that the programme can continue.

I feel deeply sorry for Ms Shetty. She may have been dreadfully misguided in getting involved in cesspit tv, but nobody should ever be bullied as she has been -- and, yes, it was racist, among other things. Our society is sad and sick when, in its millions, it watches a programme designed to encourage the nastiest, lowest characteristics of humanity and bring them into the public eye, and which allows an oaf such as Jade Goody to become obscenely rich by mere dint of her stupidity and unpleasantness. It remains to be seen whether Endemol and C4 will scrape their last vestiges of decency together and undertake never to produce such garbage again.

I am an Indian and I am concerned with the lack of education in Britian. I really am. If 4 brits cannot show a single brain among them, it is scary. Jade, Danielle, Jo and Jack are so brainless.

It is easy to put it on cultural differences, but hey, Jermaine, Dirk, Ian are also from a different culture from Shilpa. But they have no problems with her and are good pals.

Believe me, Shilpa (or for that matter most Bollywood actress) are of average brightness or below it as well. But she looks 100 times more brilliant that these 4 brits put together.

I think if this is how an average Brit is, they have a much bigger problem than racism in UK. The UK education system is going to the dogs. And they need to rectify this before the last intellectual is wiped off from Britian. It will definitely not happen during our lifetime, but surely one of your great great grandchild would turn up a moron as one of these.

Racism? Please, oh my God which side of the nanny State bed did everyone climb out of today. Lets not confuse stupidity, ignorance and having an opinion for racism.
By the way I hate Indian food so lets just hope that no one hounds me and claps me in irons for expressing my opinion.
Poor old Jade is not a racist shes just as thick as pig poo thats all.
Racism might be a crime buts lets not make stupidity a crime as well... mind you thats not such a bd idea.

Oh and another thing this event was obviously deliberate. Reality TV thrives on putting some retard on the box and broadcasting her putting both feet in her mouth.

Channel 4 cynical or what? Quotes from the interview released today show that Ch4 bosses don't care about the Broadcasting Code or whether something is offensive or not. Not apologising and showing pride in producing the most complained about show in UK broadcasting history. To paraphrase Ms. Shetty - "Is this broadcasting in the UK today?"

Channel 4 Treats Us All As If We Are players In Its Show
Unwitting participants in a game of fiction versus reality. Is this how Big Brother programme chiefs have come to regard us all?

This is due, in part, to the boundaries between the public domain and the world of TV. having become so fused, and Channel 4 being of the opinion that the media is bigger than the Businesses that sponsor it, having no regard for anything but itself.

Whilst the recent antics and behaviour of the housemates have not gone so far to curry favour with the public, nor have taken lesser priority in its estimation, there are other issues business must feel less comforted by and compelled to protect itself against.

Forget social etiquette and the private space we have enjoyed, day to day, in a life and world, wherein we have kept vigil over a respectful distance from each other, preventing us from savaging each other, in packs, like wild animals, the public domain has now been invaded, and if you think in a 'goody' way, not so.

Fears for the future, from business contributors (sponsors) of CH4, and to what extent of controversy Irresponsible and radical programmers will go to cross the line, have caused a divide, between the business world of reality and the fictional world of television and its programme chiefs who make no excuses for themselves, nor for their intention to undo the social fabric of society, or the well being of its upstanding citizens. These megalomanics have exacted powers beyond the fanaticism that they have for their Big Brother creation, even beyond the delusions of grandeur', which Hitler suffered, believing he could control the on and off button over anti-Semitism. Now, it feels it can preside over the public domain, dictating what say the public can have over its own life, and how, and what place it can hold, and when. Channel 4 treat us all in the public domain like we are in its show.

This is obviously disconcerting, in what is suggested to be their opinion toward their sponsors. As It is roping the reputation of businesses in to the chaos, besmirching and sullying their character, showing a total lack of respect for who put them there in the first place.

It follows that, at the onset of the racial and abusive outbursts of one of its Big Brother contenders Jade Goody, Channel 4 did not once take the responsible initiative to intervene and remove what the company describes as the evil and abhorrent character from its house of depravity, in spite of the fact that what the live show was airing upset every legal, moral and decent norm that holds civility to account.

Later news syndications revealed Goody's admission of racism (announced on ITV Teletext Saturday 20th January 2007), which Channel 4's Big Brother had earlier chosen to excuse, disguising it as being 'just a girly thing'. Yet reports were made where ratings continued to soar, the financial cogs continuing to turn for Channel 4.

The fact that Channel 4 chiefs failed to act appropriately on anything that was happening, at least not until the public were forced to take the uncompromising and unprecedented steps to intervene, with complaints to Ofcom and to the police, protesting against what was continually being unleashed upon it, did sponsors realize that Channel 4 had lost the plot.

Channel 4 acknowledged the severity and impact that Goody's torrent of abuse was having on the wider world, lording itself over the situation, in the way it was managing the increasing rise of public sentiment and media frenzy that it was creating, with a statement allegedly from its chief Andy Duncan declaring 'all publicity is good publicity' (Daily Mirror TV Editor Nocola Methven 20th Jan 2007). Yet the financial cogs continued to turn , from racism, bullying and more recently homophobia. Danielle Lloyd taunted H (aka Ian Watkins of Steps), on the Thursday Night live show, with remarks of ridicule 'you're a little gay boy' she taunted.

Dwelling on comments such as, 'television that can be trusted', and 'when we get it wrong we own up', Channel 4 Chief Andy Duncan's own statements, made in his lecture to Christian Faithworks 18 months ago: far from this, what we now have is television that does anything but [quotes] 'enlightens rather than reinforce prejudice'.

Unbelievable it is that it had to become an international incident before Channel 4 chiefs would engage with any appropriate action. By that time it had already shown the extent of its contempt.

Unbelievable too that instead of removing the inauspicious character from the house, the network took the unprecedented decision to break its own rules and re-write its own format. At this point, the dividing barrier that separates Big Brother from the wider world, the defining space that keeps the public at a safe distance from the often tumultuous and surreal world of TV, had crossed over in to reality. It was this that broke with all customs, norms and conventions. It even incited public outcry and damaged its relations further with the public.

The Big Brother format had failed and had stretched itself beyond mere televised entertainment - i.e. that which we would usually sit up watching, titillated, observing in considerate silence, with text finger at the ready. That it now engulfed us all as players in an unnerving plot that threw caution to the wind and set us all up against the jaws and vice of TV. in the making - of which we had no choice or agreement about participating in - crossed the line.

Yet, Channel 4 declares itself to be 'the true voice of democracy' (Davina McCall - Big Brother Live Eviction show Friday 19th January 2007). Supposedly, one of its central purposes, and most important responsibilities, is the underlying principal and value it holds, that, "tolerance and understanding of others can only be built on knowledge and respect".

Channel 4 has proven itself to be in the autonomous position and the prevailing authority to enforce this, by pushing incidents of the nature we have witnessed, and from which it feels we can learn, in to our faces, telling us when we can and when we cannot free ourselves from such disturbing exposure and how, if we wish to, we have to pay for that privilege - by texting to vote at 50p a time.'

Taking stock of the fact that it is now apparent, when Big Brother called Goody into the diary room, reprimanding her and cautioning the prevention of the racial jibes and verbal attacks on housemate Shilpa Shetty, which it had witnessed, that it admitted that something was wrong in it all.

Yet, It treated the press with equal contempt, the financial cogs continued to turn, unlike the way the network's sponsors would have liked to have seen a return on their investment.

In essence, those who should have been in charge ignored Jade Goody and her vicious attacks, turning a blind eye to the suffering of Goody's victim, to the unpleasantness suffered by the rest of the housemates, even ignoring their own rules by throwing the Big Brother format to the wind. They ignored the public's cry for the immediate removal of Goody and for an apology from the programme chief Luke Johnson and Andy Duncan and the chaos that ensued. Instead an announcement was made in the form of a statement from Channel 4 chiefs saying that, 'it is a good thing that the show has raised these issues and provoked such a debate'.

What we learned was that Big Brother, alone, did not stack up by itself. No wonder its sponsors thought it mad to be putting money in to something that really did not work, and were tactful in their withdrawal.

Channel 4 has shown complete utter contempt for the civil way of life, liberty, reality and the rights by which we live, enjoy and demand, without being held to ransom for it, leaves us in no two minds. It is a network that rides slipshod over the laws that, in reality, protect us, the customs that preserve our integrity and conserve our sense of propriety. And in a sinister and disturbing travesty, it gave an ultimatum to its viewers, that they either paid their way out of the discomforting and disconcerted viewing, which they'd been surprised by, drawn in to, unprepared for, had been made to be turned into the voyeur that they were not, by such unsudden and unexpected twist in events. CH4 itself was airing and controlling and subjecting them to what it wanted them to watch. It has total contempt and disrespect for the boundaries between reality and entertainment. It takes no responsibility for potentially engendering racial sentiment in the wider community whatsoever.

Its chief once alleged, 'I make no claim for Big Brother as social or moral education. It's an entertainment show and a very important one for us commercially'. What he failed to say then was that, were any social or educational efficacy to arise from the show, they'd take all due credit for it, reap all reward and benefit, and, that if that did not happen naturally, it would be enforced, through instigating it selectively.

Jade Goody, her family and the mixed racial groups were an obvious choice for channel 4.

But whilst we remind ourselves that Channel 4 will steer no social outcome in a positive direction nor be held accountable for it, companies will no doubt refuse to invest in something, which surmounts to making money from the weakness of others and societal fragility. Channel 4 should not profit in any way from this kind of programming in this type of instance.

Were Channel 4 able to provide the key tangible outputs and answers that are intrinsic to any successful business aim, were it capable of positively turning about the dark heart of private prejudice that its show unearthed, why can it not provide explanation for it, be prepared to do so, provide those answers now, steer society in the direction its chiefs are now telling us it should be led (i.e. into forcing its private tendencies to the surface for the creation of heated debate), instead of charging it for the privilege of an agonizing torment first and foremost? The answer must be that it cannot. Society itself has not yet found the answer. And this leaves CH4 in a place where it is just exploiting strife that it is setting up itself.

According to Daily Mirror's Bob Roberts in his 20.01.07 report, he quoted Trevor Philips, Chair of The Commission for Equality and Human Rights, as saying that, 'The reason so many people are disturbed by what they have seen is that the programme is holding up a mirror to our society and few of us like what we see'.

What must be surely concerning for us all, is what authority appointed Channel 4 to hold society up in judgment in this way and make it the omnipresence to which we are answerable?

What this programme has done is laid bare CH4's lack of credentials. And whilst nothing can really be gotten from this type of service, social or educational - except mere titillation - we should all be urged to remind ourselves that the powers that be are we the people. We decide what's right and wrong for us. It's always been that way and so will always remain thus. And if we say we are entitled to a decent way of viewing, an acceptable level of exposure, we hold that prerogative as well as our own informative sense of intuition.

Luke Johnson and Andy Duncan have a lot to learn.