I'm still not fully sure about this. In my view it was slightly ambiguous how she chose not to tell us after the act that Chase was also involved. However she did use Chase in the Semi's right? And it is her dog? So what is she actually guilty of here?
This fake winner needs to be stripped of her win
2 of 15
Originally Posted by myscimitar:
“Using a fake dog and not telling the public, she was a cheat and needs to be stripped of the title and everyone who voted have the money refunded.”
“Using a fake dog and not telling the public, she was a cheat and needs to be stripped of the title and everyone who voted have the money refunded.”
What do you mean fake! Next you'll be telling me Roger Moore didn't do all his own stunts in those James Bond films, if that's the case I want my money back!
Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523:
“No but I wasn't too surprised when she said it was Chase a day later.”
“No but I wasn't too surprised when she said it was Chase a day later.”
So that why some people are angry as they paid to vote on a single dog, that all I am saying!
Originally Posted by MattXfactor:
“I'm still not fully sure about this. In my view it was slightly ambiguous how she chose not to tell us after the act that Chase was also involved. However she did use Chase in the Semi's right? And it is her dog? So what is she actually guilty of here?”
“I'm still not fully sure about this. In my view it was slightly ambiguous how she chose not to tell us after the act that Chase was also involved. However she did use Chase in the Semi's right? And it is her dog? So what is she actually guilty of here?”
Guilty, not bring both dogs out after the act, and not telling us that 2 dogs are involved, she was happy to do that after the semi, so why I wonder, as I said, it would have been a vote loser as everyone loved Matissee.,
Originally Posted by myscimitar:
“So that why some people are angry as they paid to vote on a single dog, that all I am saying!”
“So that why some people are angry as they paid to vote on a single dog, that all I am saying!”
You don't vote on a specific part of the act, such as a specific dog. That's like voting for a specific one member of the choir.
You vote for the overall act, of which Chase is a part of.
I think Jules was silly. She should have just said she had two dogs from the beginning. I think people would have still voted for her. She could have said that one of the dogs didn't do certain tricks as they might not be the suitable dog for it. Nobody could have faulted her as she knew the dogs best and would have just been playing to their abilities.
Originally Posted by myscimitar:
“So that why some people are angry as they paid to vote on a single dog, that all I am saying!”
“So that why some people are angry as they paid to vote on a single dog, that all I am saying!”
If they paid, that's their own fault anyway for not using free votes via the app.
I didn't want her to win, but I don't think she should be stripped of the win. The only fair thing would be to ask everyone who voted for her if they want to retract their vote and see if the numbers go down enough to make Jamie the winner. Of course that is never going to happen.
Originally Posted by spkx:
“You don't vote on a specific part of the act, such as a specific dog. That's like voting for a specific one member of the choir.
You vote for the overall act, of which Chase is a part of.”
“You don't vote on a specific part of the act, such as a specific dog. That's like voting for a specific one member of the choir.
You vote for the overall act, of which Chase is a part of.”
No one knew that. Even the act was called only Jules and Matisse. If it had been Jules and her dogs etc, then I sure no-one would have complained!
Originally Posted by JamieHT:
“I didn't want her to win, but I don't think she should be stripped of the win. The only fair thing would be to ask everyone who voted for her if they want to retract their vote and see if the numbers go down enough to make Jamie the winner. Of course that is never going to happen.”
“I didn't want her to win, but I don't think she should be stripped of the win. The only fair thing would be to ask everyone who voted for her if they want to retract their vote and see if the numbers go down enough to make Jamie the winner. Of course that is never going to happen.”
I think people out of spite now would say they want to retract their vote
Originally Posted by Sarah Anne:
“I think people out of spite now would say they want to retract their vote”
“I think people out of spite now would say they want to retract their vote”
Spite for what? If they feel they were duped, that is a good enough reason. However there would be some people who would just want their money back.
Originally Posted by myscimitar:
“Using a fake dog and not telling the public, she was a cheat and needs to be stripped of the title and everyone who voted have the money refunded.”
“Using a fake dog and not telling the public, she was a cheat and needs to be stripped of the title and everyone who voted have the money refunded.”
Come on. We all know it was probably the producers who asked her to highlight one specific dog and act like that was the whole act.
As usual, it's someone else being blamed for Syco's manipulations.
Honestly, the biggest part of this that's a crock is not the whole dumb outrage over a contestant doing what they were told, but that frankly, as lovely as dogs are, they shouldn't have won 50% of the past 4 series. That's frankly absurd.
Originally Posted by Sarah Anne:
“I think Jules was silly. She should have just said she had two dogs from the beginning. I think people would have still voted for her. She could have said that one of the dogs didn't do certain tricks as they might not be the suitable dog for it. Nobody could have faulted her as she knew the dogs best and would have just been playing to their abilities.”
“I think Jules was silly. She should have just said she had two dogs from the beginning. I think people would have still voted for her. She could have said that one of the dogs didn't do certain tricks as they might not be the suitable dog for it. Nobody could have faulted her as she knew the dogs best and would have just been playing to their abilities.”
Do you really believe it was her choice?
Syco tells pretty much every act how they're supposed to present themselves, and if they want to get on air, people do what they're told.
Why would Syco do this? Because they were trying to recreate the marketing success they had with Ashleigh and Pudsey, and I bet anyone reading this, if they sit back and think about that for a moment, will know that's true.
Originally Posted by Grumpy_Alan:
“As the human half of a dog act she was much less likeable than Ashleigh was when she won BGT.
And, of course, Asheligh did it for the love of her dog without any thoughts initially of making money out of it all.
Jules, on the other hand is old enough, and experienced enough in the animal training world, (where she earns her living anyway), to be fully motivated by the potential for extra income.”
“As the human half of a dog act she was much less likeable than Ashleigh was when she won BGT.
And, of course, Asheligh did it for the love of her dog without any thoughts initially of making money out of it all.
Jules, on the other hand is old enough, and experienced enough in the animal training world, (where she earns her living anyway), to be fully motivated by the potential for extra income.”
Of course Ashleigh entered a nationwide televised talent show with a £250k prize at stake just for the love of her dog. And the choir entered just for their love of singing. And the magician just for his love of magic
. Everybody and anybody who takes part in BGT is doing it with the hope of winning.
Originally Posted by myscimitar:
“No one knew that. Even the act was called only Jules and Matisse. If it had been Jules and her dogs etc, then I sure no-one would have complained!”
“No one knew that. Even the act was called only Jules and Matisse. If it had been Jules and her dogs etc, then I sure no-one would have complained!”
What do you mean no one knew that? Chase was in the semi-final alongside Matisse. He didn't appear out of nowhere.
Again, people suddenly getting hung up on the act name. It's just a way to identify the acts, it's not a full billing of who's involved.
Jamie Raven had helpers, Chloe Crawford had helpers and a double, Michael Late had helpers and a double, a lot of acts had backing dancers, Jesse Jane had her group of ninjas, etc.
In all cases it was only the leads that were billed in the act name, same with Jules and Matisse.
Furthermore, 'Jules & The dogs' wouldn't have made sense at the auditions when there was only one dog and would've spoiled the appearance of chase in the semi-finals.
Further still, no one complained that it was called 'Jules & Matisse' in the semis when Chase was involved or even after the final when Skippy was involved either.
The act name has only suddenly become an issue in the last 24 hours after the revelation of Chase's trick.
Originally Posted by spkx:
“What do you mean no one knew that? Chase was in the semi-final alongside Matisse. He didn't appear out of nowhere.
Again, people suddenly getting hung up on the act name. It's just a way to identify the acts, it's not a full billing of who's involved.
Jamie Raven had helpers, Chloe Crawford had helpers and a double, Michael Late had helpers and a double, a lot of acts had backing dancers, Jesse Jane had her group of ninjas, etc.
In all cases it was only the leads that were billed in the act name, same with Jules and Matisse.
Furthermore, 'Jules & The dogs' wouldn't have made sense at the auditions when there was only one dog and would've spoiled the appearance of chase in the semi-finals.
Further still, no one complained that it was called 'Jules & Matisse' in the semis when Chase was involved or even after the final when Skippy was involved either.
The act name has only suddenly become an issue in the last 24 hours after the revelation of Chase's trick.”
“What do you mean no one knew that? Chase was in the semi-final alongside Matisse. He didn't appear out of nowhere.
Again, people suddenly getting hung up on the act name. It's just a way to identify the acts, it's not a full billing of who's involved.
Jamie Raven had helpers, Chloe Crawford had helpers and a double, Michael Late had helpers and a double, a lot of acts had backing dancers, Jesse Jane had her group of ninjas, etc.
In all cases it was only the leads that were billed in the act name, same with Jules and Matisse.
Furthermore, 'Jules & The dogs' wouldn't have made sense at the auditions when there was only one dog and would've spoiled the appearance of chase in the semi-finals.
Further still, no one complained that it was called 'Jules & Matisse' in the semis when Chase was involved or even after the final when Skippy was involved either.
The act name has only suddenly become an issue in the last 24 hours after the revelation of Chase's trick.”
So why was she not honest enough to mention chase after her act. She knew that would lose her votes!
Originally Posted by myscimitar:
“So why was she not honest enough to mention chase after her act. She knew that would lose her votes!”
“So why was she not honest enough to mention chase after her act. She knew that would lose her votes!”
Because it would have ruined the narrative.
Originally Posted by myscimitar:
“So why was she not honest enough to mention chase after her act. She knew that would lose her votes!”
“So why was she not honest enough to mention chase after her act. She knew that would lose her votes!”
Because like most reality show contestants who get to on air status, she's bound by legal agreements to not talk about anything on the show that the producers don't authorise her to.
Originally Posted by myscimitar:
“So why was she not honest enough to mention chase after her act. She knew that would lose her votes!”
“So why was she not honest enough to mention chase after her act. She knew that would lose her votes!”
It'd be like Chloe or Michael mentioning their doubles, completely ruin the performance.
Originally Posted by jerefprdterra:
“Have to agree with the OP, and the final should take place again.”
“Have to agree with the OP, and the final should take place again.”
It doesn't matter how many times you post it, it still won't happen.
You're boring people now *yawn*
Originally Posted by jerefprdterra:
“Have to agree with the OP, and the final should take place again.”
“Have to agree with the OP, and the final should take place again.”
Rubbish - jusr sour grapes
Originally Posted by xTonix:
“It isn't 'cruel' the dogs are very well looked after and enjoy what they do, any womble can see that.”
“It isn't 'cruel' the dogs are very well looked after and enjoy what they do, any womble can see that.”
so Im a womble for caring about dogs being mistreated, you live in a fantasy ..
Originally Posted by tawny:
“Rubbish - jusr sour grapes”
“Rubbish - jusr sour grapes”
Sour grapes, maybe, but she won a huge of money by not telling the public there was a stand-in dog that helped. To me this came across as cheating the public to vote for what was believed a wonder dog that did all the tricks!
Originally Posted by calamity:
“so Im a womble for caring about dogs being mistreated, you live in a fantasy ..”
“so Im a womble for caring about dogs being mistreated, you live in a fantasy ..”
He's saying you're not a womble, though???
2 of 15
