Not sure what to say about this...kinda sad people put so much faith in to it http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/b...de-bid-1925256

If its true, the show is not to blame.

Yes extremely sad.

This guy's problems started a long time before he reached the BGT stage.

To do what he did to get there was just irresponsible to people who do not have his issues.

I agree with you. The show should have a policy for treatment of vulnerable adults. They have a duty of care for people they use up and spit out.


For a start they shouldn't be saying things like this.
Same goes for the judges because they say it several times to different contestants in every single show.
It's just irresponsible.

Yes but will he hear Brucie moaning about how vulnerable adults are treated on BGT? No we won't because he only thinks kids get let down and treated like slaves anything for a headline.

His act wasn't good and I don't think the show is to blame. I feel more sad for his family and friends he was willingly to just selfishly leave behind to pick up the pieces just because he never got through to the next stages of a talent show.

His own fault for being that deluded to think his act would go anywhere.

That's a bit harsh.

I don't think it IS harsh.

He's like a deluded Dragon's Den candidate who thinks he's got something special, but all he's got really is something to take the p**s out-of. They don't make these TV shows to improve people's lives you know... it's to entertain the public and ultimately to make someone (nay, lots of people) in the TV industry money.

It's no different to Big Brother etc, given the odds that you will actually come across well, be liked by the public, be edited sympathetically, it's probably not worth it.

People moan that kids don't want to take the difficult route of working hard to show the world their ideas or talent these days, but it seems that we now have naïve *30 year olds* crying about not making it.

Sorry if I'm coming over too harsh, and obviously I don't want anyone to attempt suicide, but this guy is the epitome of the problems mentioned in the previous paragraph; it's getting so PC that we won't even be able to criticise anyone in the future for fear of their life falling apart. Don't forget, HE put himself in for all this.

Just a bit!

Not all people the judges put though after the first audition are asked to attend the success/rejection day, some are simply sent a rejection letter after the judges have done the tape viewing. For the producers to deliberately give him false hope by encouraging him to fly back to the UK paying for flights and hotels and causing him to loose his job was wrong in my opinion.

So what you're effectively saying is that if somebody's mental state of mind means that they're deluded then it's perfectly fine to exploit them for public entertainment.
And even despite the person being deluded, they put themselves up for this so it's all their fault.

You're even comparing it to Big Brother as though that must demonstrate that it's all fine.

You say that the show isn't made to improve people's lives, but yet that's exactly how the show is sold to the public many times during each episode. Surely you can see how that could have an effect on the minds of people who are possibly going through a rough period in their lives and in a vulnerable state of mind?

What's more important, the lives of real people or our own entertainment?

I can't believe some people on this forum who believe that simply because somebody is deluded it means that they have been given an automatic sense of entitlement to mock them and laugh at them.
If somebody is genuinely deluded it suggests that they may currently have problems going on in their life.

ALRIGHTMATE, you took my point about Big Brother incorrectly. I was saying that people go on the show for fame and fortune, but very few get that; they experience ridicule or notoriety instead i.e. it's not worth it. I know that, so I would never apply in the vain hope that I might become famous or win £100,000.

Re: BGT, I used the word deluded in the general sense, not the psychiatry definition. As mere TV viewers, are we honestly expected to worry about the mental state of everyone we ever see on the box, to consider all the time we're watching whether they're suitable or not? All the BB housemates, the Come Dine attention-seekers, the really terrible singers who go in for BGT, whether the Apprentice candidates are actually serious about their skills, or if the Masterchef contestants can handle the pressure?

So, don't blame me/ us, but also, are the producers really supposed to know that a muscly 30-year-old fitness fanatic is likely to turn-out to be a vulnerable person? I'm not defending them, and it does seem that they might have given him encouragement falsely, but we've now come full circle because surely everyone knows that some contestants are there, and are encouraged to continue in the process, purely to be mocked or at least to make things a bit more silly/ fun i.e. Maarty this year, Wagner in X Factor, John Sargeant in Strictly etc.

None of them could have seriously thought they would win their respective shows, but it seems that Scott really did rate himself. Still, I'm not getting into amateur psychology on an entertainment forum...

I read the article, but didn't notice anywhere in there that he had any history of depression or other vulnerability.

In which case how are BGT supposed to know that he had suicidal tendencies, or indeed any other mental health issues?

I would also query whether the producers ever actually say directly to a contestant, (particularly one as spectacularly uninteresting as this one), 'You are destined for stardom'. Come on.

Man is either lying for attention or has mental health issues.

Okay, I'm sorry if I took what you said about BB wrongly, I just took it as I read it.

BIB. YES, I would hope so. Just because we are television viewers doesn't by default mean that we should forget about having a conscience. Just because we're a viewer doesn't make us passive in the entire scheme of things. I think we have a responsibility on our part too. These are real people and I don't think we should forget that, even if there is the barrier of the television screen between us and them which makes people less than people and more like characters whose only purpose is to amuse us.
If we laugh and mock others just for the sole sake of our own entertainment I'm not sure how we can really call ourselves a sophisticated society.

Second BIB, no I'm not blaming you. But yes, the producers are supposed to know if somebody is a vulnerable person. If they don't know then they probably shouldn't even risk it.
Shows like this are a big deal and there's a very danger that they could potentially harm some people if they're not adequately equipped.
They have a duty of care and must show a degree of responsibility for the people they use for their shows. They shouldn't mislead or inject false ideas into the heads of members of the public who appear on their show.
I believe that there is a legal remit for them to adhere to isn't there?

Third BIB. Not somebody who is deluded.

I don't think that the general definition of the word 'deluded' is any different from the pathological definition. It's exactly the same thing. There's no differentiation. If somebody is a victim of their own delusion, or are deluded due to misinformation which has been presented to them, I don't necessarily think that it means that people have an automatic self-entitlement to mock them and laugh at them.

True, we do at times, when rightly or wrongly we think we see an insufferable arsehole on The Apprentice and love to see them get their comeuppance. But even then I think ideally we should have a discerning eye and judge when it's appropriate to be laughing at somebody for being deluded and when it's not.
Sometimes it's cruel, not funny, and unnecessary. I don't think that just because somebody on telly is deluded it gives us carte blanche to mock and deride them. At some point I think our own consciences should come into play and we should be responsible for how we react to something. otherwise we'd be monsters wouldn't we? We'd be as culpable as the programme makers for contributing to somebody's misery.

Whether that happened or not, I don't see how that's so far fetched, because we see the judges say it to several contestants every single night BGT is shown.

So sad and suicidal that after vomiting up the pills he called the press to tell them.

There's probably many people who have been rejected in a similarly harsh fashion (you have to expect it in the entertainment industry) and simply pick themselves up and carry on.
It just depends on the type of person, can't really blame the show.

People who can't take being rejected shouldn't be on this show. Does he think that even if he won this competition, people would just non-stop say yes to him? People whose nerves aren't stable, they shouldn't be auditioning for this competition.

He may have been bitter enough to try and blame the show for his attempted suicide.