Fact is. Not a lot of people feel conned at all. In fact 99.7% of the people that voted, don't feel conned.
It's reflected here really, it's actually only a handful of people claiming that this was some massive conspiracy to gain income through deception. They've been misled by sensationalist headlines into thinking it's a massive deal, the naive simple folk that they are. A couple of posters are presenting a rational, logical counter to this in an attempt to make them see sense, while everyone else doesn't get the fuss.
It's amusing because everybody always (rightly) condemns the minuscule minority of a programme's viewership that run to OFCOM with trivial (or just plain incorrect) complaints. If I was on the opposite side of the fence, I'd be wondering whether that tiny band of freaks was suddenly right, or whether in this instance I'd just become one of them...
Try not making up your own reality and you may get an answer.
Hahaha of course you ignored it. As you ignore anything that doesn't fit into you're cloud cookoo land based agenda.
See usually when someone is so, so adamant that a law has been broken and so, so outraged by it they call the police and report it. That's not 'my' reality. It's simply reality.
That's what people in the real world do. In real situations when real laws have been broken and real crimes committed.
You obviously don't have the courage of your convictions else you'd have complained to the police that you had been defrauded since you're so adamant that has happened.
So it's very clearly not 'my' argument that is straw man or infantile.
But, as it stands I suppose you'll just stick to being a keyboard warrior.
No I think you will find that voting involving money has quite a few laws and regulations attached to it.
None of which are concerned with you thinking that part of an act was achieved a certain way and you being wrong about it.
Is that what really sticks in your throat here? The fact that you, a self-professed master magician and hypnotist, were completely and utterly fooled by a dog trainer doing a switch with a large dog and you not spotting it?
You can say "but I wasn't looking for a switch! It wasn't a magic act!" but you can't have it both ways. Either the switch was so instrumental to the act ("but how on earth could that be achieved with only one dog?!") and you should therefore have been on the lookout for how such a marvellous feat was achieved, or it wasn't instrumental to the act (all that mattered was that her dog walked a tightrope) and hence there are no reasonable grounds for complaint.
Bath Opera are an AMATEUR company and he had a single masterclass with Pavarotti. That doesn't mean he trained with Pavarotti. He most certainly was a phone salesman at Carphone Warehouse.
You do realise that libel applies to online forums don't you?
Where did I say that Bath Opera was professional? And what part of "and did he not" did you miss in your rush to type idiotic nonsense about libel?
So he spent £20000 on trying to advance his career including a masterclass in which he sang for Pavarotti but he had to stop due to an accident. But when he came back to try again he won £8000 on Barrymore's My Kind of Music TV show. Which paid nicely for more courses in Italy.
So, not exactly just a hopeful walking of the street, was he?
And how much of all this were the viewers told when he was on the show? Were we told about all his training and stage appearances or were we told about the shy wee man who sold phones?
I do not say to critisise him but simply to point out that these shows are all about the producers findng the talent and putting together the best show possible. In exactly the same way that Spelbound or Attraction did not simply show up at open auditions.
If they strip her of the title, then I'm leaving this pathetic country.
They won't, though because Ofcom actually hold some common sense.
Is this really the level we are dealing with here?
You seriously don't know about laws, broadcasting regulations and what Ofcom do?
The title is just a thing the programme generates; Ofcom has no say over that at all; the programme can elect her the Queen of Entertainment for all it's worth (not a lot)
If Ofcom find that people were misled by the show then it can heavily fine the show/broadcaster and force them to refund voters who voted for her.
That is what should happen and then of course that will leave the whole show in shambles - A winning act in which deception was use and after refunds, a winning act who may not have got the majority of votes. The whole thing will and is a shameful mess.
It would be also interesting if some of the other finalists launched complaints about not winning affecting there earnings. (Another legal outfall from the show deciding to deceive people.)
It is simply being pointed out that he wasn't a complete a mature with zero experience as he was portrayed.
Basically the producers choose to portray people how they like and you can bet your life Paul was told not to mention any of the above.
If liable applies to forums then more then a few posters had better hope Jules doesn't read DS, and if she does she doesn't decide to take action. Since she's been labeled everything from a liar, animal abuser and by one poster her actions were likened to murder. There's quite a few here she could take to the cleaners.
Was he portrayed like that, or did you and others just assume that?
Why are other people always to blame for the assumptions that you make?
And for your information all the information above was on the BGT website throughout the competition so it most certainly wan't hidden.
Definition of amateur= not being paid.
Paul's job was that of a salesman. Singing was his hobby. Yes he had lessons but if you are a keen amateur you take lessons from the course pro. Nothing wrong in that.
The dancers have choreographers, they don't simply make it up as they go along...
Oh and libel applies to any form of communication.
Is this really the level we are dealing with here?
You seriously don't know about laws, broadcasting regulations and what Ofcom do?
The title is just a thing the programme generates; Ofcom has no say over that at all; the programme can elect her the Queen of Entertainment for all it's worth (not a lot)
If Ofcom find that people were misled by the show then it can heavily fine the show/broadcaster and force them to refund voters who voted for her.
That is what should happen and then of course that will leave the whole show in shambles - A winning act in which deception was use and after refunds, a winning act who may not have got the majority of votes. The whole thing will and is a shameful mess.
It would be also interesting if some of the other finalists launched complaints about not winning affecting there earnings. (Another legal outfall from the show deciding to deceive people.)
Either 'the show' deceived people. Or Jules did. Try to keep up with your own trolling.
What 'should' happen is the 0.3% of the 4.5 million that complained should get refunds if they want them.
Thats it. I'm sure ITV are shaking in their boots at the thought of having to pay back 1000 people considering 4.5million voted (and that was just the final).
And since you're interested in facts. Here's one. The fact that less than 0.3% of the 4.5 million that voted shows very clearly that no, not a lot of people feel conned or lied to, or defrauded. That's an undeniable fact. Another fact 99.7% of the people that voted are a-okay with the result. Man other undeniable fact.
So feel free to continue saying lots of people feel conned etc but the undeniable facts show that not to be the case at all.
None of which are concerned with you thinking that part of an act was achieved a certain way and you being wrong about it.
Is that what really sticks in your throat here? The fact that you, a self-professed master magician and hypnotist, were completely and utterly fooled by a dog trainer doing a switch with a large dog and you not spotting it?
You can say "but I wasn't looking for a switch! It wasn't a magic act!" but you can't have it both ways. Either the switch was so instrumental to the act ("but how on earth could that be achieved with only one dog?!") and you should therefore have been on the lookout for how such a marvellous feat was achieved, or it wasn't instrumental to the act (all that mattered was that her dog walked a tightrope) and hence there is no reasonable grounds for complaint.
Why should I bother answering a post set out to belittle and tell me what I can and can't say.
If you actually have a question instead of arrogantly telling me what I can and can't do and what is what, I may chose to answer it.
The fact that you are shouting me down and yet the producers have already fully admitted to it with 'producers in tears' is most amusing. They decided to deceive the public with the set up and by hiding the extra dog. It's black and white what they did and have even admitted it, but no, you feel that keeping on arguing the toss and tell me what I can and can't do and what I should or shouldn't have done is productive.
The fact that you are shouting me down and yet the producers have already fully admitted to it with 'producers in tears' is most amusing. They decided to deceive the public with the set up and by hiding the extra dog. It's black and white what they did and have even admitted it, but no, you feel that keeping on arguing the toss and tell me what I can and can't do and what I should or shouldn't have done is productive.
Oh my god, you really do believe everything you read in The Star, don't you?
Why should I bother answering a post set out to belittle and tell me what I can and can't say.
If you actually have a question instead of arrogantly telling me what I can and can't do and what is what, I may chose to answer it.
The fact that you are shouting me down and yet the producers have already fully admitted to it with 'producers in tears' is most amusing. They decided to deceive the public with the set up and by hiding the extra dog. It's black and white what they did and have even admitted it, but no, you feel that keeping on arguing the toss and tell me what I can and can't do and what I should or shouldn't have done is productive.
As above. Black and white fact. 0.3% of the voters have complained. Meaning 99.7% have not.
Black and white fact. A tiny, minute minority of the voters have complained.
Black and white fact. The vast majority of people who voted are a-okay with the act. 99.7% of them in fact.
Black and white fact. Your keyboard warrior act is as believable as Simon telling the sun he knew nothing about Chase.
As above. Black and white fact. 0.3% of the voters have complained. Meaning 99.7% have not.
Black and white fact. A tiny, minute minority of the voters have complained.
Black and white fact. The vast majority of people who voted are a-okay with the act. 99.7% of them in fact.
Black and white fact. Your keyboard warrior act is as believable as Simon telling the sun he knew nothing about Chase.
HA HA HA You are taking (Amount of people who have bothered to complain to Ofcom) and made that equal and mean (Amount of people who are annoyed at the deception). You can't do that! The maths are seriously flawed.
And as usual you then ran with your strawman nonsense and extrapolated that everyone else who didn't officially complain to Ofcom are completely happy with the result.
You have wrongly made the statistics fit what you wanted anyway and they don't.
And here we have another classic of putting words into my mouth.
That was said by another poster!
You have no argument and so you have to invent things people have said and done so that you can answer your own strawman arguments.
The debating skills have really gone down on DS recently.
There's nothing to debate.
Jules and Matisse won. Fact.
Chase had a collar with his name on. Fact.
Jules said herself Chase did the rope walk. Fact.
Jules never hid the fact that chase did the tight rope (as shown by the collar and her admiring it). Fact.
0.3% of voters have complained. Fact. 99.7% did not. Fact.
What's to debate?
It strikes me you, for some reason have a vendetta against Jules. For reasons unknown. And are trying to pass this vendetta off as fact by bandying about words like 'the law' and 'minimum legal requirement'. Whilst showing zero evidence of this supposed law breaking you keep banging on about.
HA HA HA You are taking (Amount of people who have bothered to complain to Ofcom) and made that equal and mean (Amount of people who are annoyed at the deception). You can't do that! The maths are seriously flawed.
And as usual you then ran with your strawman nonsense and extrapolated that everyone else who didn't officially complain to Ofcom are completely happy with the result.
You have wrongly made the statistics fit what you wanted anyway and they don't.
Oh right. Now facts aren't facts.
If people are annoyed they can complain. If they aren't. They won't. Quite simple really.
1000 people out of the 4.5million who voted have complained. That means less than 0.3% of those who voted have complained. Try and skew that anyways you like. I suppose you've personally interviewed all 4.5 million and asked if they're annoyed and if so why didn't they bother to complain? No? Thought not.
The statistics fit fine. What they don't fit is your Jules hating propaganda.
Edit. As below. I stand corrected. 0.0022% of the voters have complained.
.............Apparently there were around 4.5 million votes. ..................
For the final? I hadn't realised there were so many .... err .... people interested enough to vote. So the much mentioned "mere" 2% difference actually amounts to 90,000 votes. Of whom a maximum of 1000 have complained.
While it's certainly true to call that "less than 0.3%", it's a long way less. By a factor of 13.5. 0.3 % of 4,500,000 is 13,500. 1000 of 4.5million is about 0.0022 (feel free to check my maths - please).
True, but there's no need to get wound up about it.
For the final? I hadn't realised there were so many .... err .... people interested enough to vote. So the much mentioned "mere" 2% difference actually amounts to 90,000 votes. Of whom a maximum of 1000 have complained.
While it's certainly true to call that "less than 0.3%", it's a long way less. By a factor of 13.5. 0.3 % of 4,500,000 is 13,500. 1000 of 4.5million is about 0.0022 (feel free to check my maths - please).
I'm not wound up. I was simply point out you don't need to be amateur to audition for the show. And the vast majority of people who watch don't care what experience the contestant have.
Yeah Ant announced it on the night but I checked before.
Your maths is far better than mine! Although obviously we'll both need to bow down to Old Endeavour telling us it's wrong because it doesn't fit in with their agenda.
HA HA HA You are taking (Amount of people who have bothered to complain to Ofcom) and made that equal and mean (Amount of people who are annoyed at the deception).
And the mistake you have made is deciding that there was a "deception". Somebody being annoyed that they incorrectly thought it was Matisse doesn't mean there was "deception". Some people thought Marc had trained Wendy to talk, or at the very least was independently opening her mouth. So what? Did you post about that deception?
The only people who genuinely have a grievance is those who have voted for the act but WOULDN'T have voted if they had known it wasn't Matisse on the tightrope. We genuinely have no idea on those numbers, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near enough to call the result into doubt. From the tiny sample on this forum, the complaints only seem to come from those who have a personal vendetta against the act, so wouldn't have voted for them anyway, and are just bitter that "their" acts lost to them. Suck it up.
Few pence, she won 1/4 millions pound, plus her future 'Hollywood career etc' if you remember the guy in 'Who wants to be a millionaire' was taken to court.
He was deliberately cheating to get a million pounds on a gameshow! He had other people all helping him in the audience, they had worked out a specific plan of action, meticulously planning how to go about it down to the last detail! They knew full well what they were doing just like someone who plans an commits a robbery knows what their doing! Jules used her own dogs, that she trained, in her act, which the show knew about, and so did the audience from watching the semi final and clearly labeled both dogs! How can you possibly even begin to compare the two?!
Bath Opera are an AMATEUR company and he had a single masterclass with Pavarotti. That doesn't mean he trained with Pavarotti. He most certainly was a phone salesman at Carphone Warehouse.
You do realise that libel applies to online forums don't you?
It is simply being pointed out that he wasn't a complete a mature with zero experience as he was portrayed.
Basically the producers choose to portray people how they like and you can bet your life Paul was told not to mention any of the above.
If liable applies to forums then more then a few posters had better hope Jules doesn't read DS, and if she does she doesn't decide to take action. Since she's been labeled everything from a liar, animal abuser and by one poster her actions were likened to murder. There's quite a few here she could take to the cleaners.
Yep, she's been labelled all sorts, cruel, abusive to her dogs, forcing her dogs to do tricks, a fraudster, a con artist, deliberately making Skippy three legged for the act, purposefully deceiving the public, a liar, not being british, not being a novice, using moves that are banned when their not and so on. Same with Wendy the talking dog, whose owner apparently thrashes her senseless for losing, scares her, beats her, doesn't care about her, and that she's so scared of him she runs away from him, and shakes with nerves as she's so terrified of him. Quite a few had better hope the two of them don't read DS, putting on an open public forum that someone's is an animal abuser who beats their dogs is a damn site more serious than somebody saying someone wasn't just a mobile phone salesman, which the producers were almost certainly aware of anyway.
He was deliberately cheating to get a million pounds on a gameshow! He had other people all helping him in the audience, they had worked out a specific plan of action, meticulously planning how to go about it down to the last detail! They knew full well what they were doing just like someone who plans an commits a robbery knows what their doing! Jules used her own dogs, that she trained, in her act, which the show knew about, and so did the audience from watching the semi final and clearly labeled both dogs! How can you possibly even begin to compare the two?!
You do realise that that applies both ways?
Yep, she's been labelled all sorts, cruel, abusive to her dogs, forcing her dogs to do tricks, a fraudster, a con artist, deliberately making Skippy three legged for the act, purposefully deceiving the public, a liar, not being british, not being a novice, using moves that are banned when their not and so on. Same with Wendy the talking dog, whose owner apparently thrashes her senseless for losing, scares her, beats her, doesn't care about her, and that she's so scared of him she runs away from him, and shakes with nerves as she's so terrified of him. Quite a few had better hope the two of them don't read DS, putting on an open public forum that someone's is an animal abuser who beats their dogs is a damn site more serious than somebody saying someone wasn't just a mobile phone salesman, which the producers were almost certainly aware of anyway.
Also amusing that one posted doing so pointed out liable can be held accountable on forums too.
I hope she does read. I hope she reads, and takes every single person calling her all sorts here to the cleaners. Of course that won't happen but how hysterical would it be if she did!
Not a mention of training - "has a normal job", "isnt aware of his talent", "lack of confidence" etc but not a mention of previous TV show or training.
No training mentioned (quelle surprise) "transformed me", "I can finally walk around with my head held high", "don't think friends or colleagues can believe it", "I cant believe it is all happening to me", "so grateful I can get a bit of confidence", "your story touched everyone" "shy humble with extraordinary talent"
This is the way these shows work - very judicious editing to create an image that the producers mould the acts to get the show they want. They create the image that the public see and the vast majority will accept what is shown as real life, as they would have no reason not to. So in answer to your question he was portrayed like that.
There should certainly be a full investigation as money in a vote was involved and that is covered by some serious laws.
Just because 2 fans of her act are spamming this forum and shouting down anyone who rightfully feels that justice should be done, is neither here nor there.
Its happening in the raven thread also, 2 fans are spamming and shouting forum members down, calling them thick and stupid etc
Perhaps all the other acts who used off camera assistants to perform their "talent", like stage hands at a magic show, should be subject to a full investigation too?
3 dogs were clearly used, i noticed immediately during the act.
Comments
It's reflected here really, it's actually only a handful of people claiming that this was some massive conspiracy to gain income through deception. They've been misled by sensationalist headlines into thinking it's a massive deal, the naive simple folk that they are. A couple of posters are presenting a rational, logical counter to this in an attempt to make them see sense, while everyone else doesn't get the fuss.
It's amusing because everybody always (rightly) condemns the minuscule minority of a programme's viewership that run to OFCOM with trivial (or just plain incorrect) complaints. If I was on the opposite side of the fence, I'd be wondering whether that tiny band of freaks was suddenly right, or whether in this instance I'd just become one of them...
Infantile strawman argument: Ignored.
Try not making up your own reality and you may get an answer.
Hahaha of course you ignored it. As you ignore anything that doesn't fit into you're cloud cookoo land based agenda.
See usually when someone is so, so adamant that a law has been broken and so, so outraged by it they call the police and report it. That's not 'my' reality. It's simply reality.
That's what people in the real world do. In real situations when real laws have been broken and real crimes committed.
You obviously don't have the courage of your convictions else you'd have complained to the police that you had been defrauded since you're so adamant that has happened.
So it's very clearly not 'my' argument that is straw man or infantile.
But, as it stands I suppose you'll just stick to being a keyboard warrior.
Is that what really sticks in your throat here? The fact that you, a self-professed master magician and hypnotist, were completely and utterly fooled by a dog trainer doing a switch with a large dog and you not spotting it?
You can say "but I wasn't looking for a switch! It wasn't a magic act!" but you can't have it both ways. Either the switch was so instrumental to the act ("but how on earth could that be achieved with only one dog?!") and you should therefore have been on the lookout for how such a marvellous feat was achieved, or it wasn't instrumental to the act (all that mattered was that her dog walked a tightrope) and hence there are no reasonable grounds for complaint.
Where did I say that Bath Opera was professional? And what part of "and did he not" did you miss in your rush to type idiotic nonsense about libel?
So he spent £20000 on trying to advance his career including a masterclass in which he sang for Pavarotti but he had to stop due to an accident. But when he came back to try again he won £8000 on Barrymore's My Kind of Music TV show. Which paid nicely for more courses in Italy.
So, not exactly just a hopeful walking of the street, was he?
And how much of all this were the viewers told when he was on the show? Were we told about all his training and stage appearances or were we told about the shy wee man who sold phones?
I do not say to critisise him but simply to point out that these shows are all about the producers findng the talent and putting together the best show possible. In exactly the same way that Spelbound or Attraction did not simply show up at open auditions.
Is this really the level we are dealing with here?
You seriously don't know about laws, broadcasting regulations and what Ofcom do?
The title is just a thing the programme generates; Ofcom has no say over that at all; the programme can elect her the Queen of Entertainment for all it's worth (not a lot)
If Ofcom find that people were misled by the show then it can heavily fine the show/broadcaster and force them to refund voters who voted for her.
That is what should happen and then of course that will leave the whole show in shambles - A winning act in which deception was use and after refunds, a winning act who may not have got the majority of votes. The whole thing will and is a shameful mess.
It would be also interesting if some of the other finalists launched complaints about not winning affecting there earnings. (Another legal outfall from the show deciding to deceive people.)
Was he portrayed like that, or did you and others just assume that?
Why are other people always to blame for the assumptions that you make?
And for your information all the information above was on the BGT website throughout the competition so it most certainly wan't hidden.
Definition of amateur= not being paid.
Paul's job was that of a salesman. Singing was his hobby. Yes he had lessons but if you are a keen amateur you take lessons from the course pro. Nothing wrong in that.
The dancers have choreographers, they don't simply make it up as they go along...
Oh and libel applies to any form of communication.
Either 'the show' deceived people. Or Jules did. Try to keep up with your own trolling.
What 'should' happen is the 0.3% of the 4.5 million that complained should get refunds if they want them.
Thats it. I'm sure ITV are shaking in their boots at the thought of having to pay back 1000 people considering 4.5million voted (and that was just the final).
And since you're interested in facts. Here's one. The fact that less than 0.3% of the 4.5 million that voted shows very clearly that no, not a lot of people feel conned or lied to, or defrauded. That's an undeniable fact. Another fact 99.7% of the people that voted are a-okay with the result. Man other undeniable fact.
So feel free to continue saying lots of people feel conned etc but the undeniable facts show that not to be the case at all.
Why should I bother answering a post set out to belittle and tell me what I can and can't say.
If you actually have a question instead of arrogantly telling me what I can and can't do and what is what, I may chose to answer it.
The fact that you are shouting me down and yet the producers have already fully admitted to it with 'producers in tears' is most amusing. They decided to deceive the public with the set up and by hiding the extra dog. It's black and white what they did and have even admitted it, but no, you feel that keeping on arguing the toss and tell me what I can and can't do and what I should or shouldn't have done is productive.
WOW! Just how wrong can you be?
Please list all the multiple threads that I have started - Go on! Back up that lie.
Still, like the religious, attacking the poster is the only thing to do when you have nothing to counter the argument.
Oh my god, you really do believe everything you read in The Star, don't you?
As above. Black and white fact. 0.3% of the voters have complained. Meaning 99.7% have not.
Black and white fact. A tiny, minute minority of the voters have complained.
Black and white fact. The vast majority of people who voted are a-okay with the act. 99.7% of them in fact.
Black and white fact. Your keyboard warrior act is as believable as Simon telling the sun he knew nothing about Chase.
And here we have another classic of putting words into my mouth.
That was said by another poster!
You have no argument and so you have to invent things people have said and done so that you can answer your own strawman arguments.
The debating skills have really gone down on DS recently.
HA HA HA You are taking (Amount of people who have bothered to complain to Ofcom) and made that equal and mean (Amount of people who are annoyed at the deception). You can't do that! The maths are seriously flawed.
And as usual you then ran with your strawman nonsense and extrapolated that everyone else who didn't officially complain to Ofcom are completely happy with the result.
You have wrongly made the statistics fit what you wanted anyway and they don't.
There's nothing to debate.
Jules and Matisse won. Fact.
Chase had a collar with his name on. Fact.
Jules said herself Chase did the rope walk. Fact.
Jules never hid the fact that chase did the tight rope (as shown by the collar and her admiring it). Fact.
0.3% of voters have complained. Fact. 99.7% did not. Fact.
What's to debate?
It strikes me you, for some reason have a vendetta against Jules. For reasons unknown. And are trying to pass this vendetta off as fact by bandying about words like 'the law' and 'minimum legal requirement'. Whilst showing zero evidence of this supposed law breaking you keep banging on about.
Oh right. Now facts aren't facts.
If people are annoyed they can complain. If they aren't. They won't. Quite simple really.
1000 people out of the 4.5million who voted have complained. That means less than 0.3% of those who voted have complained. Try and skew that anyways you like. I suppose you've personally interviewed all 4.5 million and asked if they're annoyed and if so why didn't they bother to complain? No? Thought not.
The statistics fit fine. What they don't fit is your Jules hating propaganda.
Edit. As below. I stand corrected. 0.0022% of the voters have complained.
True, but there's no need to get wound up about it.
For the final? I hadn't realised there were so many .... err .... people interested enough to vote. So the much mentioned "mere" 2% difference actually amounts to 90,000 votes. Of whom a maximum of 1000 have complained.
While it's certainly true to call that "less than 0.3%", it's a long way less. By a factor of 13.5. 0.3 % of 4,500,000 is 13,500. 1000 of 4.5million is about 0.0022 (feel free to check my maths - please).
I'm not wound up. I was simply point out you don't need to be amateur to audition for the show. And the vast majority of people who watch don't care what experience the contestant have.
Yeah Ant announced it on the night but I checked before.
Your maths is far better than mine! Although obviously we'll both need to bow down to Old Endeavour telling us it's wrong because it doesn't fit in with their agenda.
And the mistake you have made is deciding that there was a "deception". Somebody being annoyed that they incorrectly thought it was Matisse doesn't mean there was "deception". Some people thought Marc had trained Wendy to talk, or at the very least was independently opening her mouth. So what? Did you post about that deception?
The only people who genuinely have a grievance is those who have voted for the act but WOULDN'T have voted if they had known it wasn't Matisse on the tightrope. We genuinely have no idea on those numbers, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near enough to call the result into doubt. From the tiny sample on this forum, the complaints only seem to come from those who have a personal vendetta against the act, so wouldn't have voted for them anyway, and are just bitter that "their" acts lost to them. Suck it up.
He was deliberately cheating to get a million pounds on a gameshow! He had other people all helping him in the audience, they had worked out a specific plan of action, meticulously planning how to go about it down to the last detail! They knew full well what they were doing just like someone who plans an commits a robbery knows what their doing! Jules used her own dogs, that she trained, in her act, which the show knew about, and so did the audience from watching the semi final and clearly labeled both dogs! How can you possibly even begin to compare the two?!
You do realise that that applies both ways?
Yep, she's been labelled all sorts, cruel, abusive to her dogs, forcing her dogs to do tricks, a fraudster, a con artist, deliberately making Skippy three legged for the act, purposefully deceiving the public, a liar, not being british, not being a novice, using moves that are banned when their not and so on. Same with Wendy the talking dog, whose owner apparently thrashes her senseless for losing, scares her, beats her, doesn't care about her, and that she's so scared of him she runs away from him, and shakes with nerves as she's so terrified of him. Quite a few had better hope the two of them don't read DS, putting on an open public forum that someone's is an animal abuser who beats their dogs is a damn site more serious than somebody saying someone wasn't just a mobile phone salesman, which the producers were almost certainly aware of anyway.
Also amusing that one posted doing so pointed out liable can be held accountable on forums too.
I hope she does read. I hope she reads, and takes every single person calling her all sorts here to the cleaners. Of course that won't happen but how hysterical would it be if she did!
Its happening in the raven thread also, 2 fans are spamming and shouting forum members down, calling them thick and stupid etc
Perhaps all the other acts who used off camera assistants to perform their "talent", like stage hands at a magic show, should be subject to a full investigation too?
3 dogs were clearly used, i noticed immediately during the act.
It did not affect the act in the slightest.