DS Forums

 
 

Mattesse didn't walk the tightrope


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-06-2015, 11:41
Sarah Anne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 683
Ah! So cheating and illegal deception is all OK as long as you like the act and are an animal lover?

People really need to disconnect their feelings for real legal issues. People were deliberately misled and money was involve in the voting. That is a serious law break.
Real legal issues??? Oh come on. I know a case where someone got six months for drink driving and killing someone! I think you need perspective on what's fair in the law!
Sarah Anne is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-06-2015, 12:45
myscimitar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
Ah! So cheating and illegal deception is all OK as long as you like the act and are an animal lover?

People really need to disconnect their feelings for real legal issues. People were deliberately misled and money was involve in the voting. That is a serious law break.
1/4 million pounds, yes a major fraud I would say....
myscimitar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 12:47
grimtales1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. Albans, UK, Team Wagner
Posts: 42,866
I dont see what the problem was if Matisse wasnt good with heights and they swapped to Chase just for the tightrope bit. Its not as if they used CGI to show the dog walking or something.
Unless it wasnt known at the start Chase would be used as well.
grimtales1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 13:02
myscimitar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
Why?

It's their fault for paying to vote and not using the free votes on the app.
It is not their fault as some voters were happy to pay to use a phone, to vote, but being taken for a ride in this scam is different.
myscimitar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 14:10
Dalekbuster523
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
It is not their fault as some voters were happy to pay to use a phone, to vote, but being taken for a ride in this scam is different.
That's their fault for paying to vote via phone instead of for free via the app.
Dalekbuster523 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 15:01
Tom_Mullen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 884
When she put one dog in the bottom one side, acted like the same dog had crawled up and along the ropes and taking out the original dog from the other side. I don't know how more simple it can be put. She deliberately went out of her way to make it look like the same, just one, dog. It also clearly shows her intentions by not bringing on the extra dog at the end to carry on the deception.
I agree i don't think there can be any argument that she wanted the viewers and judges to think Matisse had walked the tightrope you could tell from the way the routine was set up plus as you have said not bringing the 2nd dog on stage. I am not as annoyed as some about the whole thing but I was a bit disappointed as I felt it was unnecessary. To argue that there wasn't some deceit going on as some seem to be doing is ridiculous as there clearly was.
Tom_Mullen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 15:05
myscimitar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
I agree i don't think there can be any argument that she wanted the viewers and judges to think Matisse had walked the tightrope you could tell from the way the routine was set up plus as you have said not bringing the 2nd dog on stage. I am not as annoyed as some about the whole thing but I was a bit disappointed as I felt it was unnecessary. To argue that there wasn't some deceit going on as some seem to be doing is ridiculous as there clearly was.
I think she knew full well if she had shown that it was not Matisse, she have not won the votes, this is what made a lot so angry.
myscimitar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 15:06
jsmith99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 19,936
When she put one dog in the bottom one side, acted like the same dog had crawled up and along the ropes and taking out the original dog from the other side. I don't know how more simple it can be put. She deliberately went out of her way to make it look like the same, just one, dog. It also clearly shows her intentions by not bringing on the extra dog at the end to carry on the deception.
But is that the same as "led to believe"? I think it's arguable. Maybe she didn't feel she needed to say there were two dogs, in what is simply a piece of entertainment. The important questions are did she present it well, and were we entertained, and I think the answer to both is "yes".

Of course, should a losing competitor wish to sue for the prize money, that would be an entirely different thing.
jsmith99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 15:24
dellzincht
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,636
Ah! So cheating and illegal deception is all OK as long as you like the act and are an animal lover?

People really need to disconnect their feelings for real legal issues. People were deliberately misled and money was involve in the voting. That is a serious law break.
You really don't know the law and you should stop posting crap like this.
dellzincht is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 15:26
dellzincht
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,636
Of course, should a losing competitor wish to sue for the prize money, that would be an entirely different thing.
Which would never happen as nobody would be stupid enough to waste their money on a lawsuit that would be thrown out of court almost immediately.
dellzincht is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 15:29
myscimitar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
You really don't know the law and you should stop posting crap like this.
Maybe it not a legal case, but should be, as a lot of people paid to vote for her, that may not have done if had a idea of the truth, and by that she has won a huge amount of money,
myscimitar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 15:30
Sarah Anne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 683
Maybe it not a legal case, but should be, as a lot of people paid to vote for her, that may not have done if had a idea of the truth, and by that she has won a huge amount of money,
The money is what this is all about isn't it. Envious of someone's new found wealth.
Sarah Anne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 15:34
myscimitar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
The money is what this is all about isn't it. Envious of someone's new found wealth.
Not at all, even went to see Johnathan and Charlotte in concert last year, good luck to anyone who won BGT fair and square, but if I found out Johnathan was miming to a record well.....
myscimitar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 15:35
dellzincht
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,636
Maybe it not a legal case, but should be, as a lot of people paid to vote for her, that may not have done if had a idea of the truth, and by that she has won a huge amount of money,
It's not a legal case and it shouldn't be either, you're coming across as totally deluded and I think you need to step away from the keyboard and get some perspective.
dellzincht is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 15:35
twells
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 708
But is that the same as "led to believe"? I think it's arguable. Maybe she didn't feel she needed to say there were two dogs, in what is simply a piece of entertainment. The important questions are did she present it well, and were we entertained, and I think the answer to both is "yes".

Of course, should a losing competitor wish to sue for the prize money, that would be an entirely different thing.
No, because the competitor who signed the BGT contract was Jules, not Matisse. And that competitor won with her act, fair and square.
twells is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 15:35
callmediva
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,773
The money is what this is all about isn't it. Envious of someone's new found wealth.
Exactly this. Lots of people live in a culture of Me, Me, Me. When someone wins big, whether it's a talent show or the lottery, people love to try to bring them down.
We seem to hate winners in this country
callmediva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 15:39
callmediva
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,773
Not at all, even went to see Johnathan and Charlotte in concert last year, good luck to anyone who won BGT fair and square, but if I found out Johnathan was miming to a record well.....
They do. All big gigs involve a certain amount of miming, some more than others.

There are a few acts, usually bands who don't mime, but most solo/duo singers do to a certain extent
callmediva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 16:37
welsh_El
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 563
No it wasn't a troupe of dogs! There was three and two you saw and still decided to vote! You have no proof whatsoever that there were more dogs!
You spent £1- is that really worth getting hysterical about?
Yes. I want my £2 back. Its the principle. The audience was robbed. Ur talking £thousands of £'s.
welsh_El is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 17:09
CollieWobbles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Another time, another place..
Posts: 24,629
The money is what this is all about isn't it. Envious of someone's new found wealth.
In a nutshell. It's not known as the root of all evil for nothing. When someone comes into money they lose friends and gain enemies.
CollieWobbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 17:15
Sarah Anne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 683
Yes. I want my £2 back. Its the principle. The audience was robbed. Ur talking £thousands of £'s.
If you want to be petty- then it was actually £1 if you voted twice! Fifty pence each time!
Sarah Anne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 17:27
Redcarman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 57
Yes. I want my £2 back. Its the principle. The audience was robbed. Ur talking £thousands of £'s.
How dumb is that ...!!
I watch the show and it doesn't cost me a penny ...
It's only the dumbo's that actually put their money up front to vote for this stuff that enables Cowell to pay out the winner ....
That's why he's a zillionaire and you're begging for your £2 back ...
Wise up for God's sake ...!!!
Redcarman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 18:56
calamity
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,425
No, because the competitor who signed the BGT contract was Jules, not Matisse. And that competitor won with her act, fair and square.
oh so Matisse wasnt forced to write as well...
calamity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 19:20
Twinkle toes no
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,661
Im serious
Think itv should pay back to everybody who voted for that stupid act.....
You are an idiot. I will probably get banned for saying but I don't care. You are ridiculous.
Twinkle toes no is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 19:30
Sarah Anne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 683
You are an idiot. I will probably get banned for saying but I don't care. You are ridiculous.
Don't rise to it Some people on here are making it up as they go along. One user said the act was cruel then claimed to have voted twice and wants a refund!!
Sarah Anne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2015, 19:50
tropical sunset
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 34

Simon has said he and the show take the blame, we shouldn't blame Jules.
Everything he said is here http://goo.gl/yCbkHi
tropical sunset is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:35.