You mean like very flawed theories of reverse snobbery in action? That sort of 'wild theor[y]'?

Yep, all wild theories, just like a "friend of Hollie's mum posting on DS, that they had a pre-arranged deal for a second chance with Simon Cowell".

Or indeed the Labour Party manifesto

Noone has ever said that it was pre-arranged with the knowledge of SC...only you have inferred that.

OK. I shall give you this opportunity to tell us what IT actually was, the you can show us all how I have libeled you

Libel?

All that I have ever said re: the pre-arrangement was that an FM, claiming to be a friend of Hollie's mother - and please note I have in posts caveated that with the fact that we can't verify her identity - said that Hollie had asked her mother in advance of her performing to promise to ensure that, in the event of her forgetting her words/corpsing, she was given a second chance. The FM concerned was using this information in defence of Hollie's mother - Hollie's mother only went onto the stage to plead for the second chance because of Hollie's advance directive to her.

Noone, other than you, has ever said that any of this - if indeed true - was with the knowledge of SC.

And you clearly placed enough credence on this anonymous post to use it in several threads as "supporting evidence" to the theory that Hollie pre-planned her tantrum in order to win votes. If you feel it is completely without substance why mention it, and if you feel "evidence" this flimsy does have substance then ....

Ultimately what you are suggesting is favouritism and sharp practice, which is surely against the spirit of the competition, and borders on fraud on a massive scale. I would invite you to prepare a dossier for Ofcom and they can look at it for you ......

Whilst I recognize the sarcasm - I often wonder if people are a mirror of their 'wit'...I don't know about you, but I have never once considered contacting OfCom about anything and I don't intend to start now.

I do not know if it is with or without substance as I cannot be entirely sure of it's provenance - however, forums will always be subject to some level of speculative commentary/contribution - something you are most certainly familiar with - and, as such, the post by the FM concerned is pertinent to the matter in hand...it is up to each individual how much or little thought and weight they give it.

All posts are, by their very nature, in some ways 'annoymous'

It wasn't a set up .. they would not DARE risk the accusations against the show, especially not with a child, if they had been found out - and most of the time with the XF when they have tried to stage stuff it has ended up coming out in the press. Its one thing to do it with an actress in a film, its another thing to do it in a reality contest.

The person to look towards is the mother. She mentions to Holden as soon as she reaches for Holly that she wants another go, Holden asks Simon, Simon seems to shirk away from it and say nothing. Then the mother starts trying to plead with Simon directly. The producer walks towards the mother to stop the interaction with Simon and sits her on the stage to discuss things with her. It wouldn't surprise me if they already knew she was likely to mess up and its possible the mother had already known she might need another go or be p*ssed off that she might not be getting it. Its vaguely possible the producers could have cooked up the scenario of what happened IF she happened to mess up but i tend to doubt they would be that cruel.

True. But I have been pointing out the, shall we say, "flimsy" nature of the evidence which lead to the theory that 10 year-old Hollie Steel planned the outburst and hoodwinked the nation. (And in the spirit of fairness I'm sure that you can accept this was a theory which had a number of followers on this forum). Thank you for posting and allowing me to illustrate this particular gem which you brought up in the debate.

Don't worry about not complaining to Ofcom, I believe over 200 have about the second chance incident. And you can bet your bottom dollar that a few of them will also be championing the "pre-planning" angle. I am SO looking forward to the report when Ofcom have the chance to examine the mountain of evidence.

You have showed a great interest in the issue previously, so maybe we can meet up after the report is published to pick over the bones. I'll even go so far as to make a prediction, I think that Ofcom will find it to be paranoid bullshit (phrased much more diplomatically of course). I am tentatively assuming that you favour the "there is a case to answer" outcome. Massive apologies if I am assuming wrongly ......

It is as well you are tentative because, as is often the case, assumption is the mother and father of all 'f-ups.

Whilst, quite clearly from my previous posts, I believe Hollie to have been, at best, nervous leading to a mess-up leading to a temper tantrum leading to a flawed decision to pander to her hissy-fit...at worst, it was orchestrated by her mother and her for attention and sympathy. Either way I believe her reaction to 'her forgetting her words', to have been ham-acted for effect.

All that said, I think complaints to OfCom of such nature are trivial and, to lesser and greater degree, malicious. I believe a publicly funded body has better things to do than investigate and adjudicate upon whether a silly, wee lassie was taking people for a ride.

On that basis I don't wish the complaints to be upheld on the grounds that those complaining should develop a bit of perspective. The same applies, in my view, to the case being made re: Susan Boyle.

Wonderful contradictory reply, covers all bases . You can say you still think it was a put-up job, but when the OFCOM report finds that to be a steaming pile of horse manure you can say you were in favour of that outcome all along.

Gordon Brown would be so proud of you ......

Or maybe I'm just calling it like I see it. From your post history you appear, to me, to be a black and white person...and rather prone to absolutes (no matter how spuriously based) and you seem to be a slight 'toys out of the pram' bod on ocassion - I just don't sway that way and have learnt over the years that life is fairly ambiguous and full of shades of grey - on that basis there is nothing contradictory at all.

Gordon would probably laugh up-roariously at the proposition that I was wasting words debating the matter and tell me to get a life...in fact I know his view on this kind of thing

If you truly think that saying that you believe the complaint has merit, but don't want it to be found to have merit is not contradictory then i think you have moved away from shades of grey and onto shades of pink skies.

As you know Gordon so well, give him my commiserations for the upcoming humiliation he is about to suffer in the Euro and local elections, and ask him when he is going to the country in order to obtain a mandate. There's a good chap ....

Chap-ess...commiserations are welcome but are an over-indulgence when everyone knows that it's just the swings and roundabouts/sticks and stones of politics and government and holding beliefs. Ce sera...the downturn will become and upswing again down the line by which time Gordon will be happy doing that which he plans to do down the line.

Asked and answered - he'll go when he feels the time is right. Personally, I think and am on record as saying so, that he should have gone before now but it's not my call to make.

But thanks again for the dollop of insincerity.

Maybe you see it as a contraditction - I see it as a complex thought process.

I'm not sure, I think she probably was very scared, but well, that's reality TV for you! Susan Boyle was just weird, she thought she had it in the bag, and looked gutted when she lost!

Note how the whole Hollie thing fell neatly within the running time too, only a couple of minutes over at the end of the show? Hmmm....children are capable of acting, you know!

That was said by Margaret O'Brien, aged 6. She was filming the 'Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas' sequence in 'Meet Me in St Louis' and she was told to cry whilst Judy Garland was singing to her. That quote was her response.

If someone will explain two things to me, I will sleep happy in my bed:

When her mother is "pleading" for her to be given a second chance, why does she look so cheerful? She tries a couple of times and then gives a big smile and turns back to her daughter.

Why, oh why, do they seat her mother on the stage? If you were the floor manager for BGT, would you try to get the mother off the stage, or would you sit the mother on the stage?

I personally do not think that it was her mother, I don't think she would dare to take that chance.

I shoud just say that this thread was just a bit of light-hearted speculation, I wasn't trying to get a 'scoop', or would never dream of writing to OFSTED, or whatever it is.
I thoroughly enjoyed BGT from start to finish and like to keep chatting about it!