'Eating and drinking Big Brother'

As Channel 4 unveils its latest batch of house-mates, Jeremy Fleming meets the team handling nitty-gritty legal issues

The legal profession may have two representatives in front of the 'Big Brother' cameras - law student PJ and pupil barrister Sunita - but it is behind them that the lawyers are really in the hot seat.

The set has moved from the Isle of Dogs to Elstree television studios in Hertfordshire.

Solicitor Andrew Brann, Channel 4's corporation secretary and head of business affairs, says: 'Newham Borough Council just wouldn't let us keep planning permission for the third year - we did have a lot of discussions with them about it.'

Apart from the bricks and mortar legal issues - such as ensuring health and safety standards in the house are up to scratch - there is plenty of legal work behind Channel 4's flagship summer series.

Solicitor Neil Pepin, deputy head of legal and compliance, has been advising the producer - Dutch company Endemol - on libel, privacy, contempt and compliance issues.

He says: 'This concerns language, imagery, sexual conversation, imitative behaviour, fairness and privacy.' Mr Pepin has drawn up guidelines for the teams of producers working on the series, and just completed a series of talks to them.

Mr Pepin is now monitoring 'Big Brother' with a team of six lawyers on a rotation basis.

'On Friday evenings, when the show is live with an audience, we will go down to the site and sit in the gallery (the control centre) watching for any problems.' At weekends, the lawyers receive a live feed into their houses ahead of viewers of E4 - C4's digital channel - and have link-ups to the gallery to report any problems.

Advice is given directly to the editors, who then make any necessary cuts.

Friday is the crunch day, though, as Mr Pepin says: 'There is only a short delay between the actual filming of the house and its transmission, say ten to 15 minutes, so we must be very careful to edit anything that the broadcasting regulators ITC [the Independent Television Commission] don't approve of in that short period.'

On the contractual side of things, Mr Brann says that each year has seen developments in the formatting.

The on-line aspects that gave viewers access to interactive elements last year are giving way in importance to digital television.

Mr Brann says: 'Viewers are able to see different angles on the house and vote through digital telly, and this has influenced the Web site, reserving it more for lateral material.'

Corinna Fowler, who works with Mr Brann as a business affairs executive and is studying part-time to be a solicitor, says: 'Negotiating the production contracts with Endemol has changed over time.

In the first series, Endemol wanted to run a lot of it themselves; now we're doing more and thinking longer term.

For example, the E4 coverage is important, because BB may not continue on Channel 4.

We recently signed heads of terms on a new long-term contract with Endemol and we're close to agreement.'

Mr Brann adds that one of the posers created by this round of negotiations has been third-generation mobile technology (which promises to bring Internet and digital screen to the phone).

'We're inventing definitions in the contract for areas that could be covered by 3G, but clearly this is something that will have relevance in the future to the BB idea - with scope for games and voting within the rich media context.

'It's a kind of chicken and egg - in terms of guessing what technology might become available, and what we might be able to use.'

Ms Fowler is involved in negotiating the contestants' contracts with Channel 4.

She says: 'The main thing the contracts deal with is the relationship of the contestants with the channel once they have been voted out of the house.

'The idea is not to tie them down for too long, but to ensure that they will be available to do reasonable follow-up stuff.'

The contracts do not require the contestants to behave in a certain way, or to try and avoid using certain language.

She says: 'We don't tell them not to swear because it's reality TV, and we wouldn't want to alter what they say as individuals.'

But this means that Mr Pepin and his compliance team have their work cut out.

'Editing the live streaming for E4 can cause big problems,' he says, adding: 'Last year, the team monitored one 21-hour period of filming in the house, and during that period we had to make 1,300 edits.

Mostly it's swearing.'

But it is not just the way that they say it, what they say can also matter: 'Talking about friends and relatives can cause problems.

If they start talking about Auntie Edna's recent hernia operation, she might not want the nation to know about that.

If they start talking about Auntie Edna being a thief or a heroin addict, you start straying into libel territory.'

The lawyers are all consulted before the house rules are drawn up.

Ms Fowler points out: 'The rules do change and adapt, and there's one big rule change this year which will take viewers by surprise, and be quite exciting - but I can't let the cat out of the bag as it only becomes clear after a few weeks.'

Mr Pepin says it is exciting and refreshing to work on a project where you see the whole thing taking shape.

Ms Fowler says: 'Some of the compliance people get very into it.

When you're listening to every word that's said by the contestants, by the end of it you're practically eating and drinking BB.'

Mr Brann adds: 'In the first series, when Nasty Nick was unmasked, there was a live feed into Channel 4, and everyone in the building, in every department, was just glued to the screen.

It was amazing.'