What I was getting at is that it proves that an age limit is not needed.
It just goes to show that they need to be mentally strong enough to take criticisms.
Yet some of the older members of Diversity were realitively teary after finding out that they'd got through - I don't know whether that is more understandable or not!

Spot on - It's not right since they can't understand nor know how to handle the rejection! I wonder what sort of impression that little child (junior school child, at that), has been left with?? Blame pushy parent(s) firstly, but also BGT should have an age limit of 16s and overs. Regardless of what we've seen before, let children, be children, as the majority of them just won't know about an adult 'game' (any one remember what has happened to some child film stars, for example??)

It up to parent if child wants top have a go why not but parent has to tell child that she/he may not get voted to get though

Like most things in life I suppose, arbitrary age limits don't work; people are individuals.

Its Natalie's parents who are to blame here and not the show. And maybe they should have prepared her to lose too, because she wanted this 200%

It's up to the parents to prepare the kids for failure - if the parents think the child is emotionally stable enough to enter, they should be able to. At the end of the day, the parents will have to deal with a devastated child who didn't get through, at whatever stage of the competition.

100th post

I don't think it's fair just to say she wasn't good enough - after all, Susan Boyle had a very shaky opening (although her ending was very good). What I noticed is, that with Susan all you had was the voice, so to speak, but Natalie's voice was hard to distinguish because of the backing track played over her and the lack of a "money note" in the song.

Im inclined to agree with the OP.

There should be an age limit. 10 years old is certainly far too young.

I think that if you look at the way the beeb ran the selection of the Olivers in I'd Do Anything last year as an example. They obviously realised that you have to be carefull with children who arent always ready to cope with the kind of pressure which comes with these shows and were very careful to look after the kids. Not putting them up for a public vote, the emphasis being put on the Olviers being selected rather than the ones rejected. Being told the result not infront of the live audience.

It was very well done and I applaude them for it.
Its in stark contrast to ITV and the way they treat the little ones on Britain's Got Talent. The parents however are just as much to blame.
Its not the rejection part that bothers me. Because, if we take the Olivers example those kids would have been auditioning for the role, TV show or no TV show and they would have been rejected anyways. Its just part of the buissness.
It is about the added pressure and spot light that it happening on live TV brings. There is a difference between being told by one or two people in a room without an audience that you arent going forward. Than being told on a stage in front of thousands, and a TV audience of millions that you arent good enough by millions of the british public.

Same view, but I think a clued-up 11 year old has that. I mean, look at Shaheen, the lad has talent and looks like he has his brain in the right place, and he's a year 7.

To be honest, I think a senior school kid will have their head switched on enough to realise all the above, otherwise they'd sink pretty quickly with the older kids, so ... Maybe no little kids, but I guess the question has to be more if they're talented.

I remember the same discussion last year as it was obvious that a number of children made it through at the expense of adults regardless of talent. I really don't think those under 16 should take part.

Well, the issue is surely about letting talentless acts through then, not about their age.

Personally I think the two Charlies should have got further, but hey... one of them was hampered because his dad was talented enough to come up with a song (which Cowell didn't like, since he prefers covers over original content) and the other didn't actually have any decent jokes.

But if you're saying Andrew Johnston, Faryl Smith and George Sampson weren't talented...

And look at that guy who was playing star wars badly on his keyboard last year... they put him through to the live acts and he was so damn useless I was laughing out loud (as a pianist/organist of a decent enough standard - post AB grade 8 standard in both) - should he be in the final ahead of the likes of Andrew Johnston (an accomplished cathedral chorister) on grounds of age alone?

Acts should be there on merit. Just that.

In a word, no. Give kids a separate BGT with professional counsellors...

i think that its unfair to have children competing with adults
on national tv
true children have learn that sometimes they wont win but most face this without it being shown to the nation
to do that to a 10 year old that will be back at school next week is cruel

Did you see the number of kids crying tonight?!!! Makes you think...

I don't know, I have nothing against them but I just find it a bit creepy - young kids singing things like Annie and Oliver and that sort of singing has always made me squirm. Didn't mind Shaheen or Natalie so much, but it is the cutesy stuff that gets me.

I think we don't mind as much when they are stage school brats, but when they genuinely are plucked from obscurity like Natalie O, then we feel bad for them.

There is some truth to that, but having kids fail in front of millions of TV viewers is a different matter entirely.

According to one paper today (sorry I forget which), the main reason she was crying is that she'd lost after being criticised for her "choice" of song, dance routine, and and outfit, when in fact they were the choices of the producers, who totally over-rules her and her family.

That must be upsetting, knowing that it is not her talent being judged but the choices made by people over whom she holds no influence.