I am astounded at the number of people who openly defend such behaviour. If it really is acceptable in the public domain, maybe they might like to try it next time they are in the city mall. It is a different thing all together if they wish to hire this type of material and watch it in the privacy of their own homes, good luck to them if thats what they enjoy. Here we are talking about an indescriminate broadcast to all and sundry; children, impressionable people of all ages. Our legislators have a responsibility to ensure that proper standards of decency are upheld for the wellbeing of our society, and to date they have let us down. I wonder how the people who defend this behaviour would feel if it happened to them or someone they loved.

The argument that if someone is prepared to watch a program then it has a right to be on the internet doesn’t hold weight with me. There is a huge market for child pornography in this country, that doesn’t mean it should be on the internet?

I am not advocating censorship of the internet but look at who is behind this particular site, it’s not a sleezy backyard job, it’s a national media corporation! Although what Channel 10 is doing with BB is not illegal it is undoubtedly unethical. Each year BB has tightened the restrictions on participants in order to produce controversial behaviour. There are no books, writing or making marks of any kind, no singing commercial music, no clocks, no contract with the outside world, participants are encouraged to sleep and shower together, punishment is via public humiliation and both the food and alcohol are strictly rationed. Earlier in the evening of the ‘incident’ housemates asked BB for something to relieve the boredom, the answer was ‘no’.

The participants in BB are being exploited, is that ethical just because there’s a market, I don’t think so. The ‘freedom to be stupid’, interesting concept but it presupposes a level of equity in this country that I don’t believe exists.

Regarding the incident itself, the police said there was ‘not enough evidence’ of a sexual assault. Well, if a video tape of the actual incident taking place is not enough evidence then there never was an assault. Without the live streaming to the net the incident would not have needed to become public. I agree with Bill about the crocodile tears. While Gretel was telling everyone to ignore the sensationalised stories about what had happened, the 10 network itself was running allegations about sexual assault on its news updates.

I expect that this sort of garbage will always find a market – the worry that I have is that it is one of our national broadcasters that has decided to meet the demand and actively incite bad behaviour to do it.

The show is a breeding ground for this type of behavior. The show sets out to place young, single, sexually active people into a melting pot together, the aim being to create these type of situations. Are we surprised to see this result?

This time is has come back to bite them.

The interesting thing is, there has been outrage against the two young men. While not condoning their behavior, I believe the blame must squarely sit on the shoulders of Big Brother.

As for the comments 'just don't watch it'. I don't, but just turning a blind eye to it doesn't make it right. The kids watching this show are our future leaders. What they are learning now will define Australia into the future. It affects us all, whether we watch it or not.

Big Brother - Great to see a person capable of good sense reflection speaking out about this terrible trashy type of television. We suffer every day from attacks on our children and deaths caused indirectly by these programmes feeding sexual predators desires. If channel 10 is not capable of good sense broadcasting, legislation should cover this. Keep up the balanced opinion Bill, WE ARE listening out here in normal everyday life.

The way to stop Big Brother and similar nonsense shows is simple:

First examine why they are broadcast - they are on the airwaves in order to make money, pure and simple.

They make their money through people 'voting' by telephone calls, which cost a premium, to either retain or remove 'contestants'. This by-passes commercial TV's normal source or revenue, advertising. This is important because no normal advertiser wants to be associated with rubbish and find their goods and services being boycotted by outraged citizenry.

Instead the weak willed and poor in intellect keep phoning up, and coughing up (generally their parents') money and vicariously live their fantasies through this so-called 'realism' television.

So the way to stop it? Make it illegal for the media organisations to directly collect revenue from viewers via telephone calls. If people still want to watch it then put this rubbish on cable or satellite TV, where people will have to pay for it up front.

At the moment those who are paying via phone calls are behaving no differently than anyone else paying for a sexual service.

I'm with Bill on this one.

After hearing some young teenagers talk as if all this were harmless fun, I suffered, for my sins, a couple of hours of this junk.

With online and videotaping facilities available to young people, it's meaningless these days to have 'up late' segments of this sort of garbage. It ought to be banned altogether, and when I have a reason to watch the Channel 10 network these days - for anything at all - I pause. Rowland