Why do you think that discussion of certain subjects in this forum are not allowed?

Do you think that Hearst Magazines UK are protecting their loyal contributors when they remove posts, or (very understandably) protecting their business?

It also depends on where the server is located, and as to where the libel was viewed.

Now Ofcom are looking into this, I hope she is finally stripped of the title.

That will only ever happen in your head.

Okay. I know you'll struggle here but let's just for a second apply a little logic.

Less than 1000 people out of 4.5 million complained. This is fact. Undeniable.

Why do you feel that 4.5 million people's votes should be ignored because less than 1000 of that number have complained?

Why is it you feel the less than 1000 who complained are more important than the rest of the 4.5 million that didn't? Why should the tiny minority's wants outweighs those of the vast majority? That's not how it works.

Say they do strip Jules of the title. Then they have to refund every one of those 4.5 million people that voted. That isn't going to happen.

If because of those less than 1000 people Jules is stripped of the title what do you think will happen then?

What happens if 2000 people complain she's been stripped of the title that they voted for her to win? Is she given it back then? Because if she was stripped of the title due to less then 1000 complaints any more complaining about her being stripped of the title would have to mean she is given the title back.

Jules will not be stripped of the title. This isn't going to happen. At any point. Ever. At all. The history books will forever show that Jules won Britain's got talent 2015.

You can wish as hard as you like but that isn't going to change.

I have faith in British justice, so we will see

Keep dreaming mate, they wouldn't strip a talent show winner off the title, that's way too harsh!!

You have some very strange ideas about justice. Fortunately, hardly anyone agrees with them.

There have been over 1,000 complaints over this matter because those voters felt that they had been misled, unintentionally or otherwise.

Since the final result was so close, the disclosure of the use of a different stunt dog might have had a material effect on the outcome of the voting. That said, I do not expect Ofcom to apply pressure for the result to be voided but I would not be at all surprised if there were criticism for ITV in respect of full and proper disclosure and a warning that it must not happen again.

Actually, you don't know that at all. I don't either, of course - but my strong suspicion is that most of that tiny percentage will be vexatious complainants like the OP, who didn't even vote for the act.

Yes I do because Ofcom supplied the actual number of complainants to the media:

The regulator has received 1,150 complaints

Yeah but there were about 90,000 votes between her and Jamie...

Doesn't matter, we all know only a tiny proportion of the voters will take the trouble to contact Ofcom .

Deception was carried out in the final of the dog act when no mention was made of Chase doing the most difficult part of the stunt .

When you have the head of ITV saying the show should have made it clear that a stunt double was used then I'm sure Ofcom will also say the same .

As to whether voters will be refunded, who knows .

Great shame that the deception took place because I like Jules and her dog act but her win will be forever tainted with this controversy .

However, that's a very small fraction of the total number of votes cast and if 50,000 of those 90,000 voters had placed their votes elsewhere because a second dog had knowingly been used then the contest outcome could have been entirely different.

In the grand scheme of things, this is indeed a small matter but in view of all the phone-in voting errors, cons and scams in previous years, it really should not have happened at all.

What in favour of a guy faking magic?

It's got nothing to do with how many have or how many haven't - It's like the fire brigade getting more than one call about the fire in the High St, there is still only one fire and it that that they concerned with.

So now that Ofcom are involved it doesn't matter how many or how few have complained to them, they are there to investigate if viewers were misled during a paid for vote.

If they decide that the audience were misled then that can fine the programme and order that full refunds are given to voters who wish to claim their money back.

They can't strip her of her title as that is nothing but a title made up by the show. The show can call her the best winner of any show anywhere in the known universe, but that's nothing to do with Ofcom.

However, if it is deemed that viewers were misled and refunds having to be given, she will then be known as the undeserving winner of a show where the voters were conned and that will follow her wherever she goes.

It's a tainted act now.

And what of the other contestants that have be done out of a fair show.

Oh god not this nonsense again.

This is about VEIWERS being misled. A magic act is not misleading as people know what a magic act is about.

In your world a singer found out after the event to have been miming when it's made out to be her voice is the same as a magic act.

Seriously do people act dense out of desperation to save their little doggy act?

You haven't understood my post.

Actually there haven't been over 1000 complaints.

The final drew a total of 1043 complains.

90 of those were about Amanda's dress. Some (I don't know the number for this) were about Alisha's dress. Some where about Jamie's lemon.

And that 2% Jules won by was actually around 90 thousand votes. So nowhere near as 'close' as you're making it out.

So let's say for argument sake the less than 1k people who have complained had voted differently. The outcome would still have been exactly the same. If 10k people have voted differently the outcome would be the same. Is 50k people had voted differently the outcome would, yes, you guessed it, be exactly the same.

In what way would the complaints of 1000 people over ruling the content 4.5 million people be justice?

Do you realise how monumentally ridiculous that sounds?

You have zero answer for any of the points I made.

Jules being stripped of the title over LESS THAN 1000 complaints from 4.5 million would be the very opposite of justice.

I can only assume you have absolutely zero idea what the words justice and fairness actually mean.

That is exactly what matters.

If you have an issue. Complain. If you don't. Don't complain.

I minute, tiny percentage of voters complained. Just under 4.5 million didn't.

Why exactly should the tiny minute portion of people who complained be more important and mean more than the other 4.5 million who didn't?

The absolute nonsense people are spouting about this is deranged.

And that's what it is, total, utter, complete nonsense.

No it wouldn't. Because Jules would still have won by 40K votes.

If 89k had voted elsewhere Jules would have still won by 1k.

Please, at least try and apply a bit of common sense.

If someone wins by 90k votes and 50k votes are removed and go elsewhere. The person still wins my a margin of 40k votes.

Actually no it seems not.

Jamie's act also received complaints.

People complained he didn't use magic to get the note into the lemon.

These people, no matter how stupid, feel just as cheated and annoyed as those who complained about Jules. So why are you being so dismissive of them? They have every right to feel cheated. And you can't say their complaints aren't valid whilst saying ones about Jules are. Because a complaint is a complaint.

Could it possibly be because you don't have some deranged vendetta against Jamie as you for God alone knows what reason do against Jules?

It's a pity Jamie will now forever have this black mark against him.

Well I'm sorry I can't answer for people with issues that don't know about magic acts, I only deal in the sane side of reality.

Anyone who seriously who says that a magic act and someone who sets out to deceive in a normal act and can't actually see the difference, I worry about.

It's laughable!

I just hope that some are young and just posting silly things on the internet as if they are adults and don't understand the difference then god help them!

PS why question my motives and call me deranged when you haven't explained your obsession with a dog act? You know, how you have systematically gone around shouting down anyone daring to question this con with utter silliness.

To anyone with common sense. Complaining Jules deceived anyone is just as daft as claiming Jamie didn't actually use magic.

And you can't have it both ways. You have repeatedly said people are valid in their complaints about Jules. So you can't now say people who complained about Jamie aren't valid simply because you don't agree with their reason to complain. You can 'hope' they're young all you want but people called and complained to ofcom about Jamie not actually using magic. They didn't just post it on the Internet. They called and complained. Over 200 people also complained about what the female judges were wearing.

Of course it's daft to complain the magician didn't use magic. It should be obvious to all what his act is. But apparently not. It's also just as daft to claim a woman who's dog had a collar with its name on was trying to deceive anyone. Anyone who, knowing the facts, still say Jules was out to deceive, I worry about.

What I'm obsessed with is common sense. Something that seems to be in short supply around here. And anyone calling it a 'con' knows far more about silliness than I can even comprehend.

Yeah common sense with the extra dog DELIBERATELY hidden at the end!

Pull the other one it's got bells one!

Even the producers are fully admitting that they screwed up and she was complicit in the con. Plus of course all the papers have been writing about the deception, but to you no one did anything wrong.

I'll stick with real common sense if you don't mind.