Children can actually cope with losing or with failure. Certainly when it comes to the semi final stage, none of the kids are actually famous. It's an experience for them being on a TV show and all, but it's not really comparable to "child stars" unless it goes much further.

Kids having tantrums when things go wrong is nothing new. Some kids are brats. Some kids are badly raised. Some of them deal well with failure. Some have a fit. Often it depends on the parents - something true for "child stars" and "regular" kids alike.

As Cowell made the point tonight, it's not like they failed. They made it to the semi-finals and came 3rd. One would hope that many of them will look back and be proud of what they achieved.

The post Hollie Steel OFCOM report highlighted the procedures in place to ensure children are cared for while on the show. Procedures which are backed up by inspections from independent authorities through the week.


You can't use the "free country" argument while at the same time slating someone for defending themselves against a particular criticism! Is it just a free country when someone is saying something you agree with? It was hardly the most stinging or angry of barbs anyway.

And whilst I am sure Cowell is well aware of the ratings for X Factor and Strictly last year, I hardly see how it matters in this discussion.


I'm fairly sure that the position he holds which meant it was his decision to make is that of "Executive Producer" and not "self appointed Saviour".

Good. You said the words yourself, "Little Girl".

She's very gifted. I say children should be allowed to grow up naturally. If she's that talented then she won't suddenly not be talented when she's 16.

The tale of child stars who lose their appeal as soon as they reach a certain age is an all too common one.
The list is very long of child stars who grow up with messed up lives.

Bruce will have seen a lot in his time, he will be speaking from experience.
Simon only speaks from what his wallet is whispering to him.

That's quite a bold claim to make.
I think his achievements in his long showbiz career do kind of overshadow somebody who's just come along and appeared on a television talent show and sung a song or done a bit of dancing.

It's not just about performing on last night's show though is it?

Arisxandra was wonderful on last night's show.
But when it came to the judges voting you could see how the stress was affecting her.

There is even a danger that rather than this show doing a child some good, the converse may be true that it may even ruin a potential future career.

There have been very good children on this show before.
Are they being looked after by Simon now?
Or are they left by the wayside because he's always looking for a new money making toy to play with on one of his shows?

Was it her that the parents said the prize money will pay off their debts?

You're talking about a child here.
What a child believes they want is not necessarily the best thing for them.

There is a long list of child stars who briefly made it big and were famous for a while.
But once they grow up they aren't the same cute kid anymore and the work dries up.
Lives have been destroyed. Drugs, alchohol, and worse.

When you're an adult you aren't trading on your cute child image and your talent can be judged in the context of you being an adult, as the public will view you from then on.

I'm not saying that BGT will destroy childrens' lives, but I'm dubious about what kind of support structure is in place, or whether they'll just be chewed up and spat out once the show is over and things move on.

The sad thing is that 'child' acts are more entertaining than 'octogenarian' acts.


Given a choice I'd ban both from TV, failing that get rid of the octogenarian.

Why does Simon need to defend himself on live television? It wasn't the time or the place to do so, and I actually don't think that dedicating his choice to put Alexandra through "to Bruce" was done to defend himself. It was just a snide dig that made him look very childish and petty.

I didnt watch it last night, but quite a lot of posters stated that she wasnt really all that good.

I think she was good, but not as good as she was in her audition.
That sounds like a very unimaginative thing to say considering that it seemed to be the most used comment used to describe several acts by the judges last night. But I think that in her case it was true.

i don't remember any of these comments being addressed to sports stars such as Tom Daley performing at the Olympics?

Is that because it does not advance your anti-Simon Cowell/pro BBC agenda perhaps?

I dont think she was anything exceptional, her parents got on my nerves more, £ signs and a meal ticket is all I got from them, very pushy, is there a market for a 11yr old belting out those sort of no.s I wouldnt want her album, could she do pop, I doubt it.

No it hasn't at all.. in 2011 SCD only won the occasional show and 2012 - yes SCD averaged more (I think) but wouldn't say 'trounced'.

What on earth does Tom Daly competing in the Olympics have to do with this subject?

I think that's a fair point. Would a child have a long career mimicking the hits of somebody like Whitney Houston or Mariah Carey?
What would happen if they were treated like other pop stars in the business and given brand new material to sing?
Wouldn't they then have to perform in a manner in which they could genuinely relate to the lyrics rather than mimic a style that they've heard on a famous song?

tom daley competed at the olympics when he was 14, an event watched by millions of people.

is the subject not related to children competing on television? is this not that same whether it is sport or singing or dancing?

what do you see as the difference?

brilliant counter argument which has unsurprisingly been generally ignored.

No the subject is related to children appearing in reality shows where they may be judged harshly and be lead to develop unreasonable expectations. Connie Talbot was dropped like a hot potato after the first series, despite Simon promising she and her family the earth. She was six years old at the time.

Tom Daly was the exception in Team GB, most of them were aged 16 and over. And god knows why you are pointing the finger at the BBC when they have absolutely no say whatsoever in who competes at an Olympic Games. This is a total no argument and not at all relevant to the discussion.

It's when they promise the earth to the young contestants which I find to be the most irresponsible aspect to it.
You can see the excited glee in the child's reaction to being told that they WILL go on to become a major star. Often not just any major star, but a worldwide major star.

The kids where better performers than most adult last night and its a competition so I dont understand the problem.

IMO the acts through to the final was spot on.
They were the best.

1. so it is unreasonable for a child who can sing to enter a talent show, but not unreasonable for a child who can dive to enter a diving competition?

2. i was not blaming the BBC for selecting Tom Daley (though they did use him heavily to promote the olympics which was their choice).

3. i found an article regarding Connie Talbot and her mum says that her daughter loved her time on the show, and that she agreed with Simon that ultimately she was too young to sign a record deal.

4. have any children who have appeared on BGT been harmed by it?

1. Its unreasonable to give a child false hope and judge them against adults, yes.

2. The BBC didn't only use Tom Daly to promote their Olympic Coverage.

3. People who sign up for Syco produced shows sign a contract stating that they will never criticise Simon Cowell. So they are hardly likely to slag him off are they?

4. See above ^ we don't really know that they haven't been harmed either.

cool so you agree with me then. glad to hear it.

Indeed. Just what has the Olympics to do with entertainment anyway?