– Extremely irresponsible – VG

There was a very bad atmosphere inside the “Farmen” farm when participant Inger Cecilie Grønnerød (47) decided to sabotage the weekly allowance in a very controversial way on Wednesday’s episode. With a camera crew in tow, she entered the house and lit a large embroidery that participants had been working on this week, and then left the house without turning it off.

Meanwhile, the great farmer Daniel Viem Årdal (30) and the assistant Sindre Nyeng (23) were in the attic of the great farmer on the second floor of the same house.

This meant that the camera crew had to act and remove the burning embroidery from the old house.

On television, the great farmer Årdal was clearly angry. Nor does he hide it from VG.

– My first thought is that it is extremely irresponsible. There and then I did not react to the fact that the weekly allowance was sabotaged, but because the way it is done is completely “hollow in the head,” he tells VG.

Do you remember this? Mads Hansen was infuriated with “Farmen” contestants after violating crown restrictions:

The 30-year-old was not suspicious of Grønnerød, considering that she was apparently constantly working with contestant Karianne Kopperstad (27), who therefore also gave her an alibi.

– I can’t understand what he did. I was with her the whole time. Maybe I was gone for “two seconds” when I filled the water bottle, and then she must have taken that opportunity, Kopperstad tells VG.

For the great farmer, the worst thing was that the “fire” started when he and Nyeng were upstairs.

– And then it ends that the production itself had to take out the burning blanket. One of them should be out of luck, so another had to run in and get him out, says the resigned “Farmen participant, who put a lot of effort into production after the incident.

– I announced that I would retire if they did not say who was behind. I got a “partial” answer, maybe they gave me a little more than they could actually say. How was the course of events. But they said they disagreed that the embroidery was lit on the inside, apparently it was never approved. And then they did television, then they pulled out the carpet while it burned.

Made it even worse, you think.

Parts of the embroidery re-entered the house and could have hit the curtains, the sofa, or anything else flammable. They were probably in control, but for my part it doesn’t hold up. It is an old, dry and fragile house. I was completely on the ground.

The editor of the TV 2 program, Kathrine Haldorsen, tells VG that it is not true that the sabotage was not approved by the crew.

– We knew that Inger Cecilie would sabotage the embroidery by burning a mark or lighting it up, and we had an agreement with her to allow us to film it. I had a kettle of water nearby and, as we knew what was going to happen, we had additional preparation in the form of a fire blanket and a fire extinguisher in the back.

She continues:

– There were people present in the room all the time, and it is important for us to emphasize that Inger Cecilie never endangered anything or anyone with what she did. The situation was under control the entire time. Neither the participants, nor the animals nor the houses were in danger.

– Was Inger-Cecilie ever encouraged or pressured by the production to do so?

– We never participate or encourage sabotage. All sabotage alone is the idea of ​​the participants, and they are responsible for the entire implementation without our help. The important thing for us is to be able to participate in what happens with the camera, that is why we have material to tell the story of what happens correctly.

But: There was a misunderstanding between Grønnerød and the camera crew, he admits.

– The misunderstanding referred to who should extinguish the embroidery, which ended in the production choosing to take it out of the house. The best solution was to quickly get the embroidery out of the house. The ground outside the house was damp, explains the show’s editor.

In addition to threatening to withdraw, Daniel Viem Årdal says that he and participant Kjetil Kirk (27) told the production that they would report the person who had sabotaged to the police if they did not find out who did it. He believes that TV 2 and Strix production company should take on more responsibilities.

– TV 2 definitely has a responsibility, they should have said no to this, but they didn’t. They almost have to endure it. They know what I mean, I gave them a clear message. So it’s up to them if they want to take it further. Had this happened in the “real” world, she would have been reported for arson.

– Do you think this will have any repercussions?

– You should get it, for your part. Both TV 2 and Strix should show that they are serious about this. Whether it happens or not, I don’t know. I’m not going to lie about that either.

VG has also been in contact with the “sinful” Inger Cecilie Grønnerød, who says this was done because she saw it as the only possibility of a successful sabotage and because she knew security was taken care of.

– Did you notice that there were people upstairs?

– We had a complete overview of the number of people in the house, including the crew, says Grønnerød, who was not surprised by the angry reactions that developed when others realized what had happened.

– It was expected and justified, because they did not know about plans and security measures.

The 47-year-old says she has no regrets for what she did. But:

– I experienced it all as scary, dramatic and clearly out of my comfort zone.

– Was the hack approved by the production, that is, the embroidery caught fire inside the house?

– The stunt was completed with production several days in advance, and there was also a team with three people present during the action, she says.

– So you didn’t experience that the production encouraged or pressured you to do it?

– It was clarified with the production, I experienced support and support, not pressure, from their side.

– So who do you think is responsible for what many of the other participants think was a very bad evaluation?

– I want to say that I have the responsibility, together with the production, he says.

Daniel Viem Årdal is still in awe of how this could have happened.

– She lights a fire inside a house and walks away, while we sit completely unconscious inside the house. Sindre and I had probably gone out and jumped out the windows if it had caught fire properly. But everything: we rent an old farmhouse with old furniture that can easily catch fire, plus the fact that we sit down without knowing it.

IC tells VG, as it is popularly called on screen, that it hopes people can distinguish between reality and play on a reality show. She doesn’t want to blame TV 2 or Strix for the fact that she is now on the “breakthrough lever” for approving and executing the stunt.

– On the contrary, I feel that TV 2 and Strix are both orderly and loving, he says.

Grønnerød then decides to reveal to the other participants that she was behind it. Naturally, it provokes reactions, especially in Karianne Kopperstad, who had given him an alibi.

– I had nausea and discomfort, I got very sick. I was with her the whole time, says the 27-year-old.

– Daniel?

– It wasn’t a surprise, really. I didn’t think it was her, but I didn’t know who did it. I just received confirmation that everything I had thought about her was true. The others were not cursed, but it was a general disappointment by IC.

On Wednesday’s episode, contestant Sindre Nyeng took care of Grønnerød, who seemed a bit “depressed” after everything that happened. He wasn’t much surprised when it finally became known who was behind it.

– I think it was Karianne who was most surprised when she came out. I was very impressed that he made it happen. I think sabotage is part of the game, but there’s something about the way she did it that she may not have been entirely lucky, she thinks.

The editor of the TV 2 program, Kathrine Haldorsen, admits that the production experienced that several participants “got very angry”, primarily because the embroidery inside the house caught fire, but also because it was sabotaged. But:

– We never perceived it as if someone wanted to retire, but we talked to them about what happened and explained that they were not in danger. We don’t want anyone to feel unsafe on “The Farm,” and if that had been the case, of course, they would have been free to withdraw. This was also communicated to them.