DS Forums

 
 

Why not complain about Jesse Jane McParland?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-06-2015, 11:58
Old Endeavour
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
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.
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?
Old Endeavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-06-2015, 12:00
Old Endeavour
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
Yes I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and hope that they are just a young person shouting nonsense on a forum. I hope it's that.
Old Endeavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 12:00
Sarah Anne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 683
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?
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.
Sarah Anne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 12:21
Dalekbuster523
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
She has 147 titles. I'd say they are much safer in her hands than an unqualified adult. What a bizarre complaint to raise.
Not really. It could be potentially dangerous if it either went wrong or kids watching at home thought 'Hey, I could try this' despite the warning. It's far bigger problem yet nobody is complaining about that.
Dalekbuster523 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 12:22
Dalekbuster523
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
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?
What Jules did wasn't illegal and wasn't 'defrauding' of any kind. This IMO is far more dangerous.
Dalekbuster523 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 13:46
Old Endeavour
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
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.
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.
Old Endeavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 13:48
Mormon Girl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,444
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.
I agree.
Mormon Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 13:51
Mormon Girl
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.
Mormon Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 13:52
Mormon Girl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,444
What Jules did wasn't illegal and wasn't 'defrauding' of any kind. This IMO is far more dangerous.
This show is open to ANY ACT and ANY AGE remember.
Mormon Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 13:53
Dalekbuster523
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
This show is open to ANY ACT and ANY AGE remember.
I'm not so sure it should be, though. I've always said BGT should have a age limit and X Factor shouldn't.
Dalekbuster523 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 13:56
Old Endeavour
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
What Jules did wasn't illegal and wasn't 'defrauding' of any kind. This IMO is far more dangerous.
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.
Old Endeavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 13:58
Old Endeavour
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
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.
Yes didn't Harry Potter have an accident in his dance group?
Old Endeavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 14:00
Dalekbuster523
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
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.
I don't believe it is a 'legal issue' at all. There's no proof that people wouldn't have voted for the act if they didn't see the third dog.
Dalekbuster523 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 14:00
Kromm
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
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.
Well it sounds like a real shame if Ofcom punishes a contestant before they punish a show's producer (who we all know controlled all of this).
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 21:30
Twinkle toes no
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,661
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!
But you kids are forgetting little Skippy! Little scamp coming in to make us all go gooey xxx
Twinkle toes no is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 22:23
Old Endeavour
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.
Old Endeavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 22:38
CollieWobbles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Another time, another place..
Posts: 24,629
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.
Nobody has been misled. For the purpose of the story it had to seem like one dog, it had to appear as if Matisse's character had escaped from the police station over the tightrope and out of the other building. They didn't actually pass one dog off as the other because each was wearing a collar with their name visibly on it for anyone who was watchin , and just before Chase got on the rope you could clearly see it was a different dog.
CollieWobbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 23:32
Dalekbuster523
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
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.
The contestants WERE given a level-playing field. Wherever your point stands con or no con, Jules wasn't at fault. That's a fact.
Dalekbuster523 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 21:09
gemma-the-husky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 17,852
But you kids are forgetting little Skippy! Little scamp coming in to make us all go gooey xxx
Yes. You dont eat a dog like that all in one go. Just a leg at a time.
gemma-the-husky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2015, 21:11
gemma-the-husky
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.
gemma-the-husky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2015, 14:25
Mormon Girl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,444
I'm not so sure it should be, though. I've always said BGT should have a age limit and X Factor shouldn't.
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?
Mormon Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2015, 14:26
Kromm
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
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.
A single example never proves a rule--you have to remember your example might be the exception.
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 13:38
sianlovescats
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 914
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!
My impression of Simon’s comment was that this little girl could end up on a children’s TV action show where she is the good guy keeping the local folks safe from the bad guys. Nothing more, nothing less, simple as that! And to the commenters that express concern about the ‘don’t try this at home’ shpiel from Ant and Dec....seems reasonable enough altthough I don’t know how any kid would be able to acquire such knives. Certainly not in any shop, and anyone who owns any of these kind of knives should already have them stored where no kids could access them. We could go further and complain that the milky Bar Kid adverts should be banned. After all, the kids in those ads are using guns!
sianlovescats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 13:46
Dalekbuster523
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
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?
16+ would work better IMO.
Dalekbuster523 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2015, 14:19
Mormon Girl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,444
16+ would work better IMO.
Well that is not fair for kids who want to enter in a group with people 16 and older so no it shouldn't be 16+
Mormon Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34.