Ofcom to investigate Amandas Dress and The Dog Double.
1 of 2
Ofcom are pathetic. They investigate literally every non-issue and then....guess what? No harm done.
Originally Posted by fugitive:
“http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/j...ns-got-5803571
is this the end for BGT?”
“http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/j...ns-got-5803571
is this the end for BGT?”
No, it isn't.
OFCOM will investigate find its fuss about nothing end of story.WHy investigate Amanda's dress,why not ALesha Dixon's too? It's patheitc people have nothing better to do than moan about a cleavage.
Ofcom aren't pathetic, the people who complain to them are. People with bugger all better to do but feign mock outrage and get their knickers in a twist over something and nothing, and report it to make themselves feel good and full of self importance. They must get some euphoric rush or something from doing it. I'm sure the 14 who complained must feel so good that they've reported such a heinous horrific abhorrent crime, they probably floated out of their front door this morning feeling on top of the world *rollseyes*.
Ofcom have to investigate complaints made to them.
Their investigation may be to ask if anyone in the office saw it & what did they think. But they have to investigate.
Though I think I would cry a little if it was me who drew the short straw and had to investigate these non-events.
Their investigation may be to ask if anyone in the office saw it & what did they think. But they have to investigate.
Though I think I would cry a little if it was me who drew the short straw and had to investigate these non-events.
Maybe the OP should have read the link they provided.
The complaints were about the dresses worn by the two female judges.
The article then went on to mention the dog act, but with no suggestion of a complaint to Ofcom.
The complaints were about the dresses worn by the two female judges.
The article then went on to mention the dog act, but with no suggestion of a complaint to Ofcom.
I thought Amanda's dress on Sunday was unnecessarily revealing, but I'm not about to report it to OFCOM...
Oh for god's sake, some people are so sad, complaining and moaning about everything, get over it! I bet it was just jealous fat women complaining about Amanda's dress, and as for the stunt dog, it's happened, get over it.
I think Ofcom will rule against ITV on the "dog double". (no, not Alesha and Amanda)
It was misleading and you just cannot do that sort of thing on TV.
It would have been so easy for ITV to do a big reveal after the act and bring on the third dog, it wouldn't have changed things that much.
It was misleading and you just cannot do that sort of thing on TV.
It would have been so easy for ITV to do a big reveal after the act and bring on the third dog, it wouldn't have changed things that much.
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“I think Ofcom will rule against ITV on the "dog double". (no, not Alesha and Amanda)
It was misleading and you just cannot do that sort of thing on TV.
It would have been so easy for ITV to do a big reveal after the act and bring on the third dog, it wouldn't have changed things that much.”
“I think Ofcom will rule against ITV on the "dog double". (no, not Alesha and Amanda)
It was misleading and you just cannot do that sort of thing on TV.
It would have been so easy for ITV to do a big reveal after the act and bring on the third dog, it wouldn't have changed things that much.”
I don't know how it was misleading. We saw both dogs in the semi final. We knew about them both. Yes, I thought it was Matisse on the rope but when I found out it wasn't it didn't annoy me because I already knew there were two.
People are looking for something to moan about because their favourite didn't win.
Originally Posted by StressMonkey:
“Ofcom have to investigate complaints made to them.
Their investigation may be to ask if anyone in the office saw it & what did they think. But they have to investigate.
Though I think I would cry a little if it was me who drew the short straw and had to investigate these non-events.”
“Ofcom have to investigate complaints made to them.
Their investigation may be to ask if anyone in the office saw it & what did they think. But they have to investigate.
Though I think I would cry a little if it was me who drew the short straw and had to investigate these non-events.”
They shouldn't when hardly anyone complained. It's this that makes Ofcom look stupid.
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“I think Ofcom will rule against ITV on the "dog double". (no, not Alesha and Amanda)
.”
“I think Ofcom will rule against ITV on the "dog double". (no, not Alesha and Amanda)
.”
I really don't think they will. I think they'll see it as a massive over-reaction.
Maybe there will be a replay of the final. After all it would rake in plenty of money which is what the show is all about.
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“I really don't think they will. I think they'll see it as a massive over-reaction.”
“I really don't think they will. I think they'll see it as a massive over-reaction.”
I'm not so sure. After all why did the BGT producers issue an apology if they thought that they'd hadn't done anything wrong? They could have just said the dog act was within their rules and left it at that!!
I said Ofcom would investigate and some here said they wouldn't. I also predict BGT will be found to have breached the code.
Originally Posted by jerefprdterra:
“Maybe there will be a replay of the final. After all it would rake in plenty of money which is what the show is all about.”
“Maybe there will be a replay of the final. After all it would rake in plenty of money which is what the show is all about.”
No chance. It would cost far too much money to do the final all over again and you would only end up with a inferior act winning.
Originally Posted by Mandark:
“I'm not so sure. After all why did the BGT producers issue an apology if they thought that they'd hadn't done anything wrong?”
“I'm not so sure. After all why did the BGT producers issue an apology if they thought that they'd hadn't done anything wrong?”
Because a bunch of idiots complained and ITV don't have the guts of the BBC to refuse a apology.
Quote:
“I said Ofcom would investigate and some here said they wouldn't. I also predict BGT will be found to have breached the code.”
“I said Ofcom would investigate and some here said they wouldn't. I also predict BGT will be found to have breached the code.”
It's not breaching anything. We saw Chase in the semi final. It was therefore made clear that Jules' act featured more than one dog.
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“It's not breaching anything. We saw Chase in the semi final. It was therefore made clear that Jules' act featured more than one dog.”
“It's not breaching anything. We saw Chase in the semi final. It was therefore made clear that Jules' act featured more than one dog.”
Well that's going to be the crux of the investigation. Could a reasonable person assume that a third dog was in use during the act. Yes some very observant people saw that it was a different dog and presumably just shrugged their shoulders but we're talking about the average viewer here. I await the judgement with interest.
Originally Posted by Mandark:
“Well that's going to be the crux of the investigation. Could a reasonable person assume that a third dog was in use during the act. .”
“Well that's going to be the crux of the investigation. Could a reasonable person assume that a third dog was in use during the act. .”
Let me answer that for you: yes.
Originally Posted by pie-eyed:
“I don't know how it was misleading. We saw both dogs in the semi final. We knew about them both. Yes, I thought it was Matisse on the rope but when I found out it wasn't it didn't annoy me because I already knew there were two.
People are looking for something to moan about because their favourite didn't win.”
“I don't know how it was misleading. We saw both dogs in the semi final. We knew about them both. Yes, I thought it was Matisse on the rope but when I found out it wasn't it didn't annoy me because I already knew there were two.
People are looking for something to moan about because their favourite didn't win.”
Well done you, but plenty of people did find it annoying because they were given the impression it was Matisse.
I don't get what's so hard to understand for some people, the question you have to ask is, did they want you to think/give the impression it was Matisse on the tight rope? I think the answer is a clear yes.
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“Well done you, but plenty of people did find it annoying because they were given the impression it was Matisse.”
“Well done you, but plenty of people did find it annoying because they were given the impression it was Matisse.”
Many of these people are the same ones who didn't want Jules & Matisse to win. Sour grapes.
Quote:
“I don't get what's so hard to understand for some people, the question you have to ask is, did they want you to think/give the impression it was Matisse on the tight rope? I think the answer is a clear yes.”
“I don't get what's so hard to understand for some people, the question you have to ask is, did they want you to think/give the impression it was Matisse on the tight rope? I think the answer is a clear yes.”
Of course they did because it was part of the narrative. Wouldn't have worked otherwise.
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“Many of these people are the same ones who didn't want Jules & Matisse to win. Sour grapes.
Of course they did because it was part of the narrative. Wouldn't have worked otherwise.”
“Many of these people are the same ones who didn't want Jules & Matisse to win. Sour grapes.
Of course they did because it was part of the narrative. Wouldn't have worked otherwise.”
Which is misleading.
The question has been asked already, but why then, didn't they show us the third dog at the end, and why did Jules answer Ant n Dec about how long it took "him" (matisse) to learn the trick.
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“Let me answer that for you: yes.”
“Let me answer that for you: yes.”
How clever of you to assume what everyone else is thinking.
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“Well done you, but plenty of people did find it annoying because they were given the impression it was Matisse.
I don't get what's so hard to understand for some people, the question you have to ask is, did they want you to think/give the impression it was Matisse on the tight rope? I think the answer is a clear yes.”
“Well done you, but plenty of people did find it annoying because they were given the impression it was Matisse.
I don't get what's so hard to understand for some people, the question you have to ask is, did they want you to think/give the impression it was Matisse on the tight rope? I think the answer is a clear yes.”
I agree. If a person had used a stunt double there would have been uproar. Although the dogs are very talented, Jules O'Dwyer did intend to mislead the public, otherwise why didn't she say she was using a stunt doggie-double before or straight after the act before the voting?
Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker:
“Which is misleading.
.”
“Which is misleading.
.”
No it's not. It's called telling a story.
1 of 2
