TODAY'S BIG BROTHER IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE LETTERS 'R' AND 'S'

Yet again Big Brother is facing accusations of racism from a proportion of its viewers and yet again it is hard to disagree with these accusations. It is not so much the casual racism that we see on our screens, but the lack of response to this by the producers and the hosts of the stable of shows that live off the main show. In fact it is more than silence, if anything the presenters seem terrified at the prospect of the subject being brought up and will quickly change the subject if it appears that discussion is heading that way. So what is going on?

Let's go back a bit through Big Brother history and identify some flash points. The first time it really reared its head was in Big Brother 3, when Adele - a black contestant - was the first contestant to be greeted by boos and jeers when she left the house. Was this racist? It would be too simple to see it as purely racist in origin, because Adele had broken the 'moral' rules that the voting audience demand be adhered to; she had bitched and was seen to be "two-faced". Much of the booing stemmed from this. However, the fact that she was female and had, to an extent, used her sexuality to manipulate, was also a factor. Did her colour have anything to do with her reception? I think it did. If Adele had been a sweet and 'uncontroversial' contestant, it is unlikely that her colour would have played a part in her reception. However, once she became 'controversial', her colour did start to matter. Maybe it allowed a deep seated mistrust to rise to the surface, seemingly justified by her behaviour - which was all well within the rules of what is after all a gameshow - but in reality predicated on ignorance and an unspoken dislike of people 'like her' who get above themselves.

Race was certainly an element in Big Brother 5, when there were violent scenes between Victor (black male) and Emma (white female). This time however, Big Brother did intervene. Frankly they had to, it had reached such a level that the show was in danger of exploding beyond their control. Emma was removed from the house and Victor remained. Big Brother could, and probably would, state that this is evidence of their refusal to tolerate racism within the house, but ... would they have intervened if the situation hadn't tipped over the edge into violence? What really prompted their actions, a desire to tackle racism or a desire to keep their show on the air? Victor emerged relatively unscathed, although he was evicted not long after, but I'll return to his 'unscathedness' later.

In Big Brother Six we saw some of the most appalling racist displays to date. Not so much because of what happened inside the house - although it was very clear to anyone with eyes and ears that Maxwell and Saskia both displayed pretty well developed racist attitudes - but outside the house when Makosi - An African woman - left the house on the final night. She was met with jeers, boos, and what can only be described as monkey noises. Davina McCall treated her as though she were a criminal for her behaviour inside the house - which had been a bit foolish at times, but was well within the rules of the game. Makosi wanted to win and did what she could to achieve that goal. - and made little or no attempt to control the baying crowd. It was a vile spectacle and one that the producers have never explained or seen fit to apologise for.

And we fast forward to this year's Celebrity Big Brother and we find an Indian contestant - Shilpa - subjected to abuse and bullying, which she might not realise is racist, but we the viewers, cannot help but know. Jackiey 'can't' say her name and refers to her as 'the Indian', constantly picks arguments with her, talks about her to the other housemates, portrays her as untrustworthy and fake in these conversations and acknowledges on leaving the house that she was close to being violent with her. Danielle calls Shilpa a dog and tells her that she's 'their cook', and Jack, pointless boyfriend of Jade, is heard to abuse her, saying he hates her, she is a wanker,and in something bleeped out by Big Brother, he appears to be calling her a 'Paki bitch'. Is this dealt with on BBBM or BBLB? Is Jackiey pulled up on her racism when she is interviewed by Davina McCall? Does anyone in the house dare to acknowledge that which only a fool could not percieve? No. After all, Jermaine Jackson is in the house and no one's picking on him, so it must be Shilpa's fault.

And this is where the 'S' word comes in to it. Throughout, it has been women who have been most likely to be at the receiving end of racist abuse that goes unchallenged. Victor emerged relatively unscathed because he was a man. Throughout, women who display their sexuality have been 'punished' for it. Throughout, attractive women who don't become one of the lads - Kate Lawler - are seen as 'slags' who need to be voted out. Men who succumb to these sexual displays or use their own sexuality to gain favour and votes are not punished. They can't be slags, they're men.

The voting audience for Big Brother is - apparently - mostly young and female, and this is - apparently - why women in the show are subject to harsher judgement than the male contestants. This is very probably true, and if true, is very sad. However, while this may be the case, it doesn't alter the fact that Big Brother plays to this demographic and in fact offers them victims along the way. They are the ones who control the edit, and it is clear to anyone who has ever watched the live feed and then seen an edit of events they watched unfold, that the producers manipulate episodes to favour some housemates and put others in a bad light. Big Brother cannot put words into a contestants mouth, but they can alter a context so that words and actions can be seen as far more damning than they actually were. They can make a victim of bullying appear to be an aggressor - Ashleyne - they can make a racist abuser - Jack - look strangely silent and just a bit of a lad. They can certainly edit out anyone they're not interested in and make it appear that the contestant adds nothing to the show, or they can limit how much they show of the negative effect that certain contestants - Nikki - have on the house.

Endemol would undoubtely argue that they cannot control the sexism shown my female viewers to female contestants. They would also argue that they are not sexist or racist and that they cannot control the elements of this to be found inside the house and in their audience. This would be disingenuous and craven. We know that they can and do control what goes on in the house, and when we see examples of racism, bullying and victimsation going unpunished, we see exactly how craven Big Brother really is. They do not want to alienate their core audience, and so seem happy to make a show that appeals to the worst in that audience and appalls anyone with even a vague sense of decency. Their cowardice is such that they seem unable to grasp the fact that they could quite easily attempt to influence their audience for the better, not by lecturing and hectoring, but by being seen to punish unacceptable behaviour, by not tolerating casual racism and by not whipping up a baying mob each and every eviction night and pretending that it's all just pantomime. Maybe it is for those involved, but its effect is to condone attitudes that should be challenged.

It is possible to make money and not sell ones soul to the Devil. Joseph Bazalgette worked on creating a sewer system that would reap health and social benefits for the whole of society, his great-grandson Peter puts sewage on our television screens.