BB FANS

Agree there.

GONGS FOR THE GOONS

RESULT! Big Brother 6 was stuffed full of divas, drama queens and dust-ups and who won? A down-to-earth Geordie.

OK, Anthony was vain and a bit dim, but at heart he was decent; a nice, normal lad. All reet!

Second place went to Eugene, the sweet, sensitive nerd. And yes, admittedly he was weird and boring, but isn't it refreshing that voters valued honesty and openness over hissy-fits and self-abasement?

This year's housemates were a largely unpleasant bunch of big-heads and show-offs. Makosi had been an early favourite but she lost us with her porky pies and treachery. Those daft pregnancy claims were her downfall.

People who have read Orwell's Big Brother would have been reminded of the Two Minutes Hate. It felt uncomfortable; but that's because this show holds up a mirror to humanity and we don't always like what we see.

Here's my verdict on BB6:

Best talking point: Craig's unrequited love for Anthony.

Worst talking point: Kinga's bottle job.

Funniest moment: Kinga trying to get on that bucking bronco (above).

Most interesting housemate: Derek.

Least interesting: Vanessa.

Most annoying: stroppy Science.

Most spoilt: Makosi.

Most wronged: Maxwell - Endemol nobbled the voting to get him evicted (but team Saskia still won! End of!)

Biggest hypocrite: Kemal, who called Saskia a slapper, but admitted to sex with a stranger in a skip!

Biggest girl: Craig - weepier than most pregnant women.

Creepiest Moment: Craig undressing the drunken Anthony.

Most deluded: Makoski, "I have never lost anything in my life."

Top quote: Craig "Two words, Anthony - whatever."

Runner-up, Derek on Science: "He is the first black person to make me want to support the BNP."

Worst psychic: Mary, who, on Friday, predicted Eugene would win.

Top fakes: Orlaith's 30E boobs.

Biggest fake: Makosi (see also, Biggest Two-Faced Back-Stabbing Pathological Fantasist). Sunday mirror

I agree with that except for the 'Derek most interesting' part - unless it means interesting to know why a man of Derek's age and background went on a reality TV show like BB at all.

OFF RADAR

BB's ANTHONY HUTTON: OK, you won, but your 15 minutes of fame are up.
Sundaymirror

Big Brother damages our health

Reality TV has stepped into dangerous psychological territory



I want to start with two admissions. First, I wanted Anthony to win Big Brother, which ended last night; and second, despite having resigned from last year's programme, I have watched enough of this year's show to realise that it plumbed new depths. Kinga's ********** with a wine bottle, Saskia's racism towards Makosi, and Craig's fondling of Anthony were genuine low points in the reality TV genre.

The programme makers seem to be casting people who are exaggerated versions of normal: more verbal, physical and dominant. When you put them together and then give them alcohol it is inevitable there will be conflict. It left me wondering what counselling they received beforehand, and what support they will get on coming out.

My resignation as a consultant from last year's series, when Big Brother became "evil", was prompted by the refusal of its creators, Endemol, to listen to any advice I gave them about what would happen if they put back into the main house two contestants who had been separated from the remainder, but allowed to hear and watch everything that was being said about them. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of human behaviour - never mind a background in psychology and criminology - would know that this was a recipe for disaster. But stupid me, I understood too late that disaster was what the programme makers wanted.

As a prison governor, I've worked with some of the most dangerous offenders. My work has been about reducing tension and violence: I'd used design to give a sense of space and reduce noise pollution; now here I was involved in a programme designed to do the opposite.

As an academic, the basis of any work that I do with people is based on informed consent, and is guided by ethical considerations that run through the research programme. An ethics committee at my university vets every research proposal to ensure that, at the most basic level, those who volunteer to take part in the research don't come to any harm.

Do the same ethical standards exist for reality TV programme makers? I doubt it, and in examples of the genre I have seen people - "volunteers" as the makers point out, as if this absolves them of responsibility - who seem to be suffering from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder or an identifiable clinical illness.

Do Kim and Aggie, of How Clean Is Your House?, believe that offering people a washing-up rota and some sound advice about vacuuming will resolve the underlying issues that created the piles of filth, newspaper mountains and unmade beds? Does Gillian McKeith think that berating the obese and showing us the content of their "bad" diets can overcome the billions spent by the food industry to get us to eat junk?
mediaguardian

You know, i think the only reason a lot of the people from down the south (including the people who work for the newspapers) are calling him this that and the other, is because he's a geordie. It's been said that they don't like geordie's. Them lot down the south (or a lot of them) think geordie's are as common as muck, and are snobbish about them.

zx50, if Eumean had won he would be getting the same treatement in the press today. They are never happy with the winner of any reality tv show.

Anthony won Oh dear

Yeah Lin, I've taking it well though