However, the fact remains that Richard played the game well and won a lot out of it. Well done Richard on winning £35,000, which is a huge sum of money, and well done for beating the banker - a good win to counter-balance the low wins of Friday and Sunday!

well done richard, endemol your tactics stink and Andrew you are a true gent

I wonder how many people might contact Endemol to complain about their recent tactics. I will be for one.

I am as well Rico

Hopefully quite a few people will be, and I may consider doing so myself. I feel that their tactics are cruel, and as far as I'm aware, it has indeed created awkwardness between the contestants and between Andrew and Richard, and this is such a shame.

The problem is, as they film the shows so far in advance (they're currently filming May episodes, although they're currently on a 2 week filming break), if there are other such cruel tactics between now and May, Endemol will be unable to do anything about it as the shows will have already been recorded...

I agree with a lot of the comments here that this was a stupid tactic used by Endemol today, and takes away from our enjoyment of the show. Hopefully they'll stop these gimmicks so we can go back to watching the show we know and love!

Yes Endemol stop using real people as toys on your gameboard and respect them as individuals.

I must admit its left me a bit disillusioned with the show now

On that basis, something tells me that it might get worse before it
gets better!

Does this mean that the people complaining here are going to stop watching the programme? Because unless people start turning off in their thousands I doubt the producers will be too concerned really. In fact, I'd guess that a few complaints will actually brighten up their day a bit -- it'll show them that the show is still having an impact.

It was a really nasty piece of emotional blackmail that they used on Richard yesterday. I know it is not unknown for contestants who win big to offer to give a slice of their winnings to a contestant who crashed and burned. I remember that way back in November 2005 that Andy K made an offer to Raj at the final stage to personally cover his loss if he opened the box and revealed 10p. J.T. also famously offered 50 Shows Lucy £1000 if he won big, and I'm sure there have been others that we don't know about. The Banker's offer to Richard wasn't quite the same thing - it was evil and should never have been allowed. I'm sure if Richard wanted to cover Andrew's disappointment or expenses then he would have dipped his hand in his pocket himself, rather than have the banker try and force his hand and give him a guilt trip. It's just not on driving a wedge between players like this.

Clearly he can do what he likes with the extra £5000, including keeping it for himself, and no-one here would blame him whatever the ultimate decision was, but the fact remains that Endemol and C4 should never have allowed Richard to be put in that position in the first place. Me personally, I'd have felt obilged to give it to Andrew anyway. In all honesty though, even if the banker hadn't called back with the mythical extra £5000 I'd have still given Andrew a little something out of the £30000 because of the previous offer that was on the table. The thing is though, he shouldn't have to feel like his hand is being forced. It's his money. If Endemol wanted to give Andrew £5000 then they should just give him the cheque and have done with it, not send Richard on a guilt trip in the process - and at the same time they can write one out for Howard too - there's another guy who walked away with a lot less than he deserved. It can be a cruel game at times, but I'm going to join the crowd here and say that I don't want to see this kind of offer again. Ever.

How rude The marriage is back on!

Hey wait... I'm engaged to Jo the newbie too ...

Naughty Zeddie

Okay. Once again I'm going to offer an alternate point of view.

One of the reasons I watch the programme is for the 'what would I do there?' factor. I like to consider what I would do if I were in the player's position. I'd imagine that most, if not all viewers enjoy thinking about this as they're watching. If the consequences of a decision are more than purely financial, but may also have an impact on other areas too, then that's an added level of interest for the viewer.

I don't know how many people saw The Search on Saturday, but there was a similar situation there. Marianne was put into a position where she, by herself, had to make a decision that would ultimately decide who got booted off of the programme. She agonised for a long time over whether to do what her heart wanted and get rid of Simon -- which would have made her rather unpopular -- or to do what was 'expected' of her and get rid of Alex -- which ultimately caused her to question her own strength of character.

The reason why I mention that is because I found it fascinating viewing. The game had, perhaps unexpectedly, thrown up a horrendously difficult moral decision that Marianne had to make, and its difficulty, together with the impact that that one decision would have was what made it so fascinating.

I'm not saying that I enjoy watching people feel such anxiety, but that I am interested in it. Looked at in the right way, it gives us an insight into human emotions and behaviour under pressure. It sparks debate, which I'd argue is ultimately a good thing. Being aware of other people's attitudes and opinions on these kinds of issues could only serve to help us all understand each other. It actually helps inform us of the 'correct' way to behave towards others, if indeed there is a 'correct' course of action in such situations. (Also, Richard coped with his moral dilemma in a far calmer way than The Search's Marianne did.)

The Banker is supposed to be cruel. That's how the character has been portrayed since Day 1. I'd argue that anybody playing their game these days must be aware of that by now, and must know what they're getting themselves into. Let's not forget that to compensate for any discomfort they might feel, they're being given the opportunity to win thousands and thousands of pounds.

I know nothing of this "Search" programme, sorry, so I can't make much of a comparison there, but I think the Banker's offers yesterday went much too far beyond his usual "cruel" persona. He's always been cruel before, yes, but only in the context of that particular game, and the players have never had to make a decision that would harm or benefit anyone other than themselves. To make offers entirely unrelated to the player playing at that moment, that instead have an effect on players whose time on the show is meant to be over, is completely changing the rules, in my book. The fact that it does actually appear to have caused problems for Richard and the other players makes me think even more that it's really not on - the Banker is an actual person playing a role, after all, and should actually think about the consequences of his actions before doing whatever the hell he wants.

And without wishing to offend anyone, I still think these offers were connected with Andrew's disability. Dennis was an extremely popular player who went away with peanuts last week - why was Jane not offered "£20,000 + £5,000 for Dennis"? It's not as if Andrew was in floods of tears at the end of his game, like £100 Lisa for example - he dealt with the disappointment just as well as anyone else, and I see no reason why he should be treated differently.

I also agree that the banker has always had a cruel persona, however, as Daniel says, it has been related to the offers and has never affected any other players... a way to look at it is like this - would have the banker done such a thing this time a year ago? No. Because they are trying to change the show to make things new, when they don't realise that the best way is to leave it as it is, or think up some new methods that aren't so controversial, and in this case, immoral!

I think any "rules" the banker used to abide by have now been thrown out of the window, hence why we are frequently now getting swap offers instead of money (Craig's ridiculous 3 swaps in a row comes to mind), and also the bizarre offers we have been having recently (some very close to the mean for no reason at all... ). Whilst new methods like this are unnecessary, they are tolerable, as after all, the banker is just dealing in money (or no money, in the case of swaps) as he should, however, his tactics yesterday have undoubtedly affected the relationship between Richard and Andrew and the other players, and this sort of new tactic is definitely not acceptable.

The banker / production team must've known creating problems in the group was a possibility, and therefore I can only think that they want to introduce horrible pyschological games into the game, which in my book, is not what the show is about.

It may be an interesting twist, and it may give us something to discuss about, but it certainly doesn't make for entertaining viewing at all, and after yesterday's game, I was just left with a bad taste in my mouth, because I knew the problems it could've caused (and apparently have caused) Richard, Andrew and the other players.

Well Done Richard Enjoy the money.

Do any of the players who were there for this show have an opinion? How was 'BlackmailGate' received on the wings?

I think maybe it WAS designed to cause friction between the players - after all there's been precious little of it up to now (except for 2 examples I can think of), and maybe they think friction might make it more dramatical?

I'm thinking of comparisions between Big Brother 4 when they could hardly think of reasons to nominate anyone (such as he doesn't clean up enough, or he doesn't cook enough) and BB5, where there were fights and arguments all the time - I know which one was more exciting!

Fine. Then compare it to Big Brother, or to Weakest Link, or to any game where people make decisions that affect another player's position in the game. If that doesn't put pressure on the participants' relationships then I don't know what does. (By the way, The Search is great -- it's on immediately after the DoND Saturday repeat.)


What about the numerous times when the Banker has made comments about the player's friends and family? About how they should think of their children? Is that not even worse 'emotional' tactics than what happened yesterday? But I don't recall everybody being so outraged about that kind of thing.


As has been said many times before, if The Banker acted in the same way to everybody, then the game would get boring and predictable. The reason why Richard got such an offer and Jane didn't is, I believe, pure chance.

To reiterate the point I finished with before, which nobody has really responded to, these players are being given the opportunity to win serious life-changing money. Why shouldn't they be tested a bit? Richard yesterday won £35,000, tax-free. Many people would have to work solidly for over two years to achieve that, with all of the stresses and strains that work involves. For the majority of people, there'll be more relationship pressures involved in over two years at work than the dilemma that Richard faced yesterday.

Let me see. Erm...

(1) Geordie selling his story to the Sun

(2) Kelly selling her story to the Mirror

Am I close? Jane and Kelly's past employment in the adult entertainment business doesn't really count, and the only other contestant I can think of who didn't seem that popular and played really early was Janelle. Are there others?

That has happened so many times in the past that the player expects it, and it is a classic thing for the banker to do. The contestant will not be judged by their familly as much as Richard could be (and appears to have been) judged by his fellow contestants, who do not know him as well as his family know him, so I feel the banker bringing a contestant's family into the game is less of an issue than what happened to Richard yesterday. The banker referring to a player's family does not affect the other contestants, whereas what happened yesterday did!



Why hasn't it happened before, then? It's quite clear that the show has been trying to add new ingredients since the begining of season 2, and even more so since the beginning of series 3 (the filming series, which started with Elizabeth and Mandy). Why has the banker not used these tactics up until now?!



Was it not a bit unfair to Richard, when no other player has ever before had to face such a decision, a decision which, as I said before, could affect other contestants?!