https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35tczLdFKmc

A million views on YouTube and I bet more than half just watched for the egging.

The more I watch it back, the more convinced I am that this was a complete set up.

My point is that if she won last year, she would have not been on the stage this year to *chucky* eggs at simon

If you need me to explain more please let me know, I will be happy to help.

You may have a point, you know.

As she stepped froward between the two singers, they actually moved slightly apart and never missed a note. Unless they are very very professional, (and a couple of cruises on a liner may not be sufficient preparation), they seemed to be expecting something to happen.

If she was genuinely trying to make a point would she have looked so happy? Happy, as in happy happy, not happy as in barking mad.

Whatever, it was the highlight of a generally dull series. Now, if only she had thrown them at Walliams ...

I actually think it was real if only for the fact that if it was a set up surely she would have gone on Daybreak/This Morning/Loose Women to gain max publicity for the show? Seems to me like it was a real incident and that Simon is genuinely angry about it.

Ridiculous, selfish woman.

I see Ms Holt made This Week last night. A discussion on protesting. Ms Holt throwing eggs at the humiliated Scowell and the lone protestor of 1989 Tiananmen Square in the same discussion. HEEEE!

They did concur that it takes time for a protest to become really effective. Changes eventually happen though.

I don't think for a moment it was a set up - she's ruined her reputation and the majority of people think she's a selfish cow, and it took the attention away from the act, so the two boys would never have been part of that - in which case, all credit to them for their professionalism.

The stupid woman ruined it for them - and herself probably - not for Simon Cowell.

... and it totally overshadowed Attraction's win. If her aim was to hurt Cowell, it hasn't really worked but others get caught in the crossfire.

Perhaps you could argue that her exploits have only made continuing headlines not because of her particular reasons but because the quality of the acts in general this year were very poor.


Perhaps the bottom of the barrel has been reached and we are now scraping the mush at he bottom.

Why else go to the trouble of encouraging 'acts' to apply based on YouTube videos and so on, why else go to the trouble of inviting 'foreign' acts to apply.

Poor acts?

Both the eleven year olds were amazing for their age. Jack Carroll, again, good for his age - and his attitude. Attraction were amazing. Surely eveyone loves the ventriloquist?

I wouldn't think the line-up was any worse than other years, and better than most.

I wrote 'acts in general'.

Yes the ventriloquist was good, as were Attraction.

However, you highlight the weakness of the acts when you write

Both the eleven year olds were amazing for their age. Jack Carroll, again, good for his age - and his attitude.


If they have to be judged against their age, then they are not outstanding - this was a talent show aimed at all ages and the only criteria is, or should have been, 'talent'.

You can't really include someone's 'attitude' as a measure of talent, or even as a measure of entertainment.

Either acts, and particularly your three examples, are genuinely good, with no qualifying statements, or they are not. By adding those qualifiers you are accepting that they were not as good as an equivalent twenty-something would have been.

We don't write that Attraction were good, considering their ages, for example. Nor do we write that Steve was good, for a man of his experience.

I see your point, but it's hard not to take age into consideration, when children are actually more talented than a lot of the adults. You have to consider their potential and how much better they're likely to be when they're older, assuming they improve in the same way anyone else would. And very few children have the level of talent that those children did, and the kids deserve recognition for that.

And of course you wouldn't mention the age of Attraction, because they're already at maturity, and so we only need mention their talent.

Jack Carroll is amazing for his age - it's not easy to be a stand-up comic, and I've seen worse adults than him.

You demonstrate how hard it is to avoid adding the 'age' qualifier.

If you had written something like 'Jack Carroll did very well in his first TV outings ...' then you would be offering your praise and judging him on his merits. Likewise for any other act.

We can't, or shouldn't, get into the 'aaah, aren't they cute' type of assessment such as has been offered for Pre-Skool, for example, now or indeed, ever.


Incientally, I too have 'seen worse adults than him'. Some posters on these threads might even be tempted to include one of the Judges in that category.

It may be hard, I don't know. I haven't tried.