Yes. A hidden dog with a collar that had his name on.

Oh well, if it's in the papers it must be absolutely true. They never lie.

Stick with whatever you want. But don't kid yourself it's common sense or 'real'.

Oh, how many times, the colller name was so small and far away, on a moving dog, that we as viewers didn't think to look as we were all under the impression it was the original dog, and then it also took a huge pic blow-up from the paper to see it, if we thought about it, it may have been the get out clause 'I did keep the dog name on view' clever and sadly it has convinced some people this was no scam.. But come on it was so small no-one could see it, and if she wanted us to see a dog change, why hide behind the panel as that was done.. And also not bring the other dog on at the end. It was a clever deception that helped her win the huge money prize. I really hope if Ofcom rule this was a scam, She have the title taken away as I don't believe she has once said sorry unlike the producers.

This will only ever happen in your head.

Not my little doggy act , I've never seen the program or the act.

I'm just tickled by the ranting from those that were taken in by one and not the other

How many times. The very fact is was there shows there was no intent to deceive.

If anybody wanted this dog hidden there would have been no collar. Jules wouldn't have told the nation on TV the next morning. And we wouldn't be having this thread because we'd be non the wiser. I fail to see why you're struggling to grasp that.

Apologise for what? If she apologises she's basically saying she did something wrong. And she didn't. People don't tend to just randomly apologise to the extremely few people with a perceived grievance.

Jamie hasn't apologised for his lemon either. People complained about that.

Neither Alisha or Amanda have apologised for their dressed. People complained about those.

You don't apologise when you've done nothing wrong just because someone complained about it.

The very fact you actually think there's a chance she will be stripped of her title is ridiculous in the extreme.

If she is (which she never will be) I'll complain to ofcom, as I'm sure will a lot more of the 4.5 million people who voted and are perfectly content with having done so.

I ask again, why is it you think the complaints of less than 1000 people should over rule the rest of the 4.5 million? You clearly have no grasp of this 'justice' you keep banging on about if that is genuinely what you think.

What is quite interesting is just how few daft people were in the end sufficiently motivated by the fabricated tabloid outrage, and the associated social media blabber, to actually bother complaining to Ofcom (or to ITV, who I believe got even fewer complaints).

In a world where collective idiocy often seems to hold sway, that's rather reassuring.

Actually you're underestimating how ludicrous it is.

First, we can't verify they are 1150 unique complaints. I doubt Ofcom can either. It could just as easily be 50 people using multiple phones, email addresses or just dropping different pieces of snail mail with different names.

But lets say it IS 1150 unique people. Let's concede that, even though we shouldn't. What CAN'T be conceded as easily--or frankly at all--is that all 1150 even watched the show. Oh, we could also as you've said, extend that to doubt about who they voted for if they did (or if they even voted at all), but the important thing is that since we can't verify if they watched the show, that means the 1150 complaints could have come from any of the approximately 64.8 million people in the United Kingdom. Ergo, that's the only real number to draw from for any analysis of it's impact.

1150 people is 0.00168% of the UK population. There's your tyranny of the vocal minority if you've ever wanted to see it. 0.00168% trying to tell the rest what to do.

I do know at least 200 of the complains received by ofcom were about the judges dresses.

So that's takes the possible complaints about Jules down to 950.

Jamie's lemon also received complaints although I don't know how many.

The final received a total of 1150 complaints. That's total. Not 'total about Jules'. Just total.

So the percentage of complaints about Jules is even smaller!

It dos not matter how many people have made a complaint, even if one person felt they paid to vote and was tricked out of the money, then Ofcom should look into it. Or are you saying in all crime's are they only a crime if more than one person is a victim!

Seriously, you really do need to get a life. It was an act on a TV show. There are far more important things to get worked up about.

Nobody was tricked. The woman's act was to tell a vignette style story for each performance, using a combination of very well trained dogs to do so. One dog performed the majority of the story, and another dog completed the illusion of the protagonist walking across a ladder.

That's it.

These shrieks of "cheat" "deceived" "lied to" "tricked" "fake" are the biggest load of childish nonsense and crap that I've ever read.

Are you really that dumb that you just continue to ignore facts and figures despite everything being said? I know you're a troll but you're trying too hard now.

Oh please stop it.

No one was tricked...the woman deserved the win more because of the amount of dogs trained.

I agree with the comment above - childish nonsense and crap.

If people need to be outraged at this then all I can say is they must lead very charmed lives.

What is laughable is that you, as a presumably grown man, are heading down this hysterical route of being incensed because a woman on a variety talent show, whose act was to perform themed humorous and clever stories using a combination of her highly trained dogs, feels deceived because one dog stood in for another during a part of the performance, to complete the overall effect.

Or it would be laughable if it weren't so abjectly pathetic.

If you have such faith in British justice, then if/when they don't strip Jules and the dogs of their win, you'll accept it without whinging and opening twenty threads on here about it?

Good. I'll hold you to it. I'm sure others will too...

Expect it WAS visible, if you looked, as I posted in another thread. The name might not completely readable, but it is obvious that it's a different name, and it didn't need a huge blow up picture to see it. She put it behind a panel so that the viewer wouldn't see how the dog was put on the tightrope, why should she reveal every tiny detail of her act? Soaps don't, tv shows don't, you don't get to see all the behind the scenes stuff when you watch something! You don't watch Corrie and see the crew setting up a fire complete with all the effects, or see how they orchestrated a car crash in casualty, because it would completely ruin the illusion that what you were watching was real and not made in a studio!



A victim?! Are you for real?! People spent 50p to vote for god's sake, you could drop that down the drain and it wouldn't effect you as it's so little! It's fifty pence not fifty pounds! Get some perspective!!

And that's just the fictional programmes. In fact, every documentary you will ever see has been falsified, one way or another. There was a big hoo-ha a while back over the filming of some polar bear cubs (probably orchestrated by the same halfwits), but what most people seem blissfully unaware of is how almost all "reality" footage is cut together. If you had a real time stamp running along the bottom of the finished product, it would often be jumping backwards and forwards, even within a single scene.

Sometimes this is apparent (if you are observant), but mostly it isn't. If you like watching "fly-on-the-wall" documentaries featuring real-life medical trauma, keep an eye on the patients' clothing, and how it often disappears, reappears and disappears again, supposedly as the treatment is progressing. This is not because the medical staff keep changing their minds about whether or not the patient should remain dressed!

On one occasion, I was on a narrow boat holiday, and we had moored next to a riverside pub (and yes, we were on a river, not a canal), when a narrow boat containing a film crew turned up and moored next to us. They asked us if we were the Morris Men. We were not. The Morris Men duly arrived, and we watched them being filmed, which was rather tedious.

I made a point of watching the TV programme when it appeared. It bore almost no resemblance to what I had seen sitting in the same beer garden. The Morris dancing had been seamlessly edited together from the mere fragments I had observed. Then (in the film) the presenter, fresh from his encounter with the Morris Men, leaves the pub and is immediately engulfed by a carnival. But there was no such carnival on that day, in that town. It had been filmed weeks earlier (or later - I forget which). I knew of the "deceit" because I was there, but had I not been, I would have been blissfully unaware.

Worry about Big Brother and the constant rigging of results and arbitrary rule changes if you people really need to vent outrage over reality TV.

A contestant in a talent show, who fulfilled illustrating her talent, and who's method of doing so was totally in line with how the showrunners insisted she present her act is a mere pimple. A big nothing compared to the constant ongoing fraud on Big Brother (although even there, its mandated by the PRODUCERS and yet usually blamed instead on the contestants).

There's no crime here. So your analogy is ridiculous.

I'll ask a third time. Why is it you feel the opinion of less then one thousand should be sufficient enough to over rule the opinion of 4.5 million.

Thankfully, the world doesn't work like that.

The normal Ofcom complaint level is about a dozen complainants so when the complaint level reaches 100x that then Ofcom has to look into the case concerned and take the complaints seriously.

Irrespective of whether it was just an unplanned oversight during a live show or a deliberate action, an act of apparent malfeasance has occurred and Ofcom has a duty to investigate those complaints especially bearing in mind the wrongdoings of the former quiz channels and previous ITV and BBC phone-ins.

Ofcom is quite right to investigate this case and, based on their previous rulings, I expect them to come up with a judgement to the effect that the viewers were materially misled (even if only accidentally) in respect of a broadcast talent competition phone-in vote and that the producers of the show and the ITV network must not allow this situation to be repeated.

Exactly! Common sense says that footage of anything filmed is edited and cut, mainly because a viewer doesn't want to spend half the running time watching the boring sitting around bits! Do some honestly think that when they watch Springwatch, Countryfile or nature shows, a bird or animal just happened to be there when the filming crew showed up! Watching actual genuine real time tv would be incredibly boring, they cut down and edit so much to get the footage they do actually show.

As an example, Crufts shown on the tv flows from one thing to the next, you never see anybody setting up, you see a few dogs do a bit of something and everything is all set in place. But watch the live streaming and you can see them spending a good 10-20 minutes setting up displays and then keeping them, with every single entrant having their full performance time. And it quickly gets very dull, people don't want to watch the helpers setting everything up, they want to see the actual event, they don't want to watch the jumps being set out they want to see the dogs go over the jumps! Viewers are interested in the action on screen, not the behind the scene technicalities offscreen.

And in the same way, nobody is bothered about stunt doubles. People watch Indiana Jones performing death defying feats, not Harrison Ford and his stunt double. They want to watch James Bond leaping down a ridiculously high drop not Pierce Brosnan and his stunt double. When viewers watched Lassie it was Lassie they were bothered about not the dog who played her. Their interest is in watching the character not the actor. Which is exactly what Matisse is, he's an actor portraying a character in a story. And for that story to work, it had to appear as if one dog was playing the same character throughout.

I'm not saying ofcom shouldn't investigate.

I'm simply saying that throwing around things like 'The fake act should be stripped of her title' and actually wanting/expecting that to happen based on the fact less than 0.02% of the voters have complained is nothing but complete and utter ridiculousness.

Well from now on I fully expect a little scene at the end of the film showing any and all stubs doubles used.

If this doesn't happen I intent to complain and if the actors win any awards for this performance and don't bring the stunt doubles up on stage with them I fully expect them to be stripped of those awards and the wages they received for the film.

I believe that will happen absolutely, because I believe in justice.

And I'll cause merry hell if I find out Henry Cavil can't actually fly!

To be fair though, quite a few people who voted that night do feel a bit annoyed by the non-disclosure aspect as illustrated by the comments that follow various newspaper articles although it's only a minority that makes what I would term extreme comments.