|
||||||||
Why not complain about Jesse Jane McParland? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
People are complaining about a third dog in Jules & Matisse's act, so why not complain about Jesse Jane McParland wiedling a sword?
After all, a kid shouldn't be playing with swords. It's highly dangerous and a much more worthy thing to complain about than a third dog in a acting dog act. So you can't get your head around and see the difference between: The moral discussion about children and a stage prop and The possible illegal deception and defrauding of voters money, which there are serious laws against. So you have started this thread trying to make out you can't tell the difference between those two thing? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
Grow up dalekbuster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 683
|
Quote:
I doubt the sword is razor sharp and so it's a stage prop.
So you can't get your head around and see the difference between: The moral discussion about children and a stage prop and The possible illegal deception and defrauding of voters money, which there are serious laws against. So you have started this thread trying to make out you can't tell the difference between those two thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
She has 147 titles. I'd say they are much safer in her hands than an unqualified adult. What a bizarre complaint to raise.
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
I doubt the sword is razor sharp and so it's a stage prop.
So you can't get your head around and see the difference between: The moral discussion about children and a stage prop and The possible illegal deception and defrauding of voters money, which there are serious laws against. So you have started this thread trying to make out you can't tell the difference between those two thing? |
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
Whether the sword was razor sharp or not- what message does it send out when Simon Cowells says her "talent" could lead to a TV career where she stabs and beats people up! He's admitting himself it's a violent sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,444
|
Quote:
So is Ice Hockey! More so on occasions. And then there is boxing. That's before we come on to other forums of Martial Arts which children have been doing for years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,444
|
Football is dangerous and what Spellbound did was quite dangerous as well because they could have hurt themselves if something went wrong with their routine in the semi final and final.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,444
|
Quote:
What Jules did wasn't illegal and wasn't 'defrauding' of any kind. This IMO is far more dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
This show is open to ANY ACT and ANY AGE remember.
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
What Jules did wasn't illegal and wasn't 'defrauding' of any kind. This IMO is far more dangerous.
IF Ofcom find that the act was designed to mislead (and there is a lot of evidence to support that just by the way it was presented) and money was involved then it's not my opinion but fact that that is a serious legal issue. So to post that it isn't, is neither here nor there. If people were mislead when they parted with money then that is a legal issue. It's up to Ofcom to decide if all the covering up of the fact that it was two dogs in her presentation misled the people about to part with money. She clearly made out that it was the same dog by putting the dog in one side, following it up and across the ropes, down the other side and out of the door at the bottom of the other side. I don't know how more misleading it could have been. And then hiding the extra dog at the end of the act just clarifies that passing it all of as one dog was clearly her intention. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
Football is dangerous and what Spellbound did was quite dangerous as well because they could have hurt themselves if something went wrong with their routine in the semi final and final.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
Yes well don't mind if I don't take someone word for that on the internet.
IF Ofcom find that the act was designed to mislead (and there is a lot of evidence to support that just by the way it was presented) and money was involved then it's not my opinion but fact that that is a serious legal issue. So to post that it isn't, is neither here nor there. If people were mislead when they parted with money then that is a legal issue. It's up to Ofcom to decide if all the covering up of the fact that it was two dogs in her presentation misled the people about to part with money. She clearly made out that it was the same dog by putting the dog in one side, following it up and across the ropes, down the other side and out of the door at the bottom of the other side. I don't know how more misleading it could have been. And then hiding the extra dog at the end of the act just clarifies that passing it all of as one dog was clearly her intention. |
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
|
Quote:
Yes well don't mind if I don't take someone word for that on the internet.
IF Ofcom find that the act was designed to mislead (and there is a lot of evidence to support that just by the way it was presented) and money was involved then it's not my opinion but fact that that is a serious legal issue. So to post that it isn't, is neither here nor there. If people were mislead when they parted with money then that is a legal issue. It's up to Ofcom to decide if all the covering up of the fact that it was two dogs in her presentation misled the people about to part with money. She clearly made out that it was the same dog by putting the dog in one side, following it up and across the ropes, down the other side and out of the door at the bottom of the other side. I don't know how more misleading it could have been. And then hiding the extra dog at the end of the act just clarifies that passing it all of as one dog was clearly her intention. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,661
|
Quote:
Digital Spy: It wasn't Matisse on the tightrope. It was Chase.
Chase: And I'd have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling forum members! |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
It's utterly irrelevant who di what or when or even if everyone would or would not vote the same way: If people have been misled in a vote that involved money then the law is quite clear about it.
So people's views on an internet site are irrelevant. But the fact are that the viewers where given the impression that it was the same dog as it was put in one side, went along ropes and out the other side - The whole thing was designed to look exactly like it was just the same dog. Add to that the fact that the other extra dog was hidden away at the end and not referred to at the time of voting, then clearly the viewers have been misled. Action must therefore be taken to compensate people who parted with money under false pretences. The ones I feel sorry for are the other contestant and the fact that they were not given a level playing field. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Another time, another place..
Posts: 24,629
|
Quote:
It's utterly irrelevant who di what or when or even if everyone would or would not vote the same way: If people have been misled in a vote that involved money then the law is quite clear about it.
So people's views on an internet site are irrelevant. But the fact are that the viewers where given the impression that it was the same dog as it was put in one side, went along ropes and out the other side - The whole thing was designed to look exactly like it was just the same dog. Add to that the fact that the other extra dog was hidden away at the end and not referred to at the time of voting, then clearly the viewers have been misled. Action must therefore be taken to compensate people who parted with money under false pretences. The ones I feel sorry for are the other contestant and the fact that they were not given a level playing field. |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
It's utterly irrelevant who di what or when or even if everyone would or would not vote the same way: If people have been misled in a vote that involved money then the law is quite clear about it.
So people's views on an internet site are irrelevant. But the fact are that the viewers where given the impression that it was the same dog as it was put in one side, went along ropes and out the other side - The whole thing was designed to look exactly like it was just the same dog. Add to that the fact that the other extra dog was hidden away at the end and not referred to at the time of voting, then clearly the viewers have been misled. Action must therefore be taken to compensate people who parted with money under false pretences. The ones I feel sorry for are the other contestant and the fact that they were not given a level playing field. |
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 17,852
|
Quote:
But you kids are forgetting little Skippy! Little scamp coming in to make us all go gooey xxx
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 17,852
|
We need a question on HIGNFY.
Odd one out. Jamie raven, matisse, jesse jane, paul potts. Jamie raven. Fakery is part of his act. |
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,444
|
Quote:
I'm not so sure it should be, though. I've always said BGT should have a age limit and X Factor shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
|
Quote:
There shouldn't be an age limit on Britains Got Talent. Connie Talbot handled the pressure well and her mum and dad weren't pushy parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 914
|
Quote:
Blunt or not I stand by it that Simons comments were irresponsible.
Surely martial arts shouldn't be about beating people up and stabbing them?! Simon really is ignorant! There will be people watching the show who think that's sound really cool and will misunderstand what Jessie did. But no lets just complain about a "fake dog" walking a tightrope. I keep laughing at people calling it a fake dog anyway. It was hardly Scooby do was it! |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
|
Quote:
There shouldn't be an age limit on Britains Got Talent. Connie Talbot handled the pressure well and her mum and dad weren't pushy parents. What do you think the age limit shout be?
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,444
|
Quote:
16+ would work better IMO.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.




