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?

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.

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.

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.

What Jules did wasn't illegal and wasn't 'defrauding' of any kind. This IMO is far more dangerous.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes didn't Harry Potter have an accident in his dance group?

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.

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).

But you kids are forgetting little Skippy! Little scamp coming in to make us all go gooey xxx

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.

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.

Yes. You dont eat a dog like that all in one go. Just a leg at a time.

We need a question on HIGNFY.

Odd one out. Jamie raven, matisse, jesse jane, paul potts.

Jamie raven. Fakery is part of his act.

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?

A single example never proves a rule--you have to remember your example might be the exception.

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!

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+