It's not her fault. It's the producers.

Simon Cowell said:


On talking to Jules on the phone:


On the act's name:




On revealing Chase did the tightrope:


You're blaming the wrong person.

'blaming' anyone at all is pathetic.

Indeed. But if they're to blame anyone, the proof shows it should be the producers.

I suggested on another thread that Jules could have revealed Chase's participation in the act. I wasn't blaming her, saying she should be stripped of the title or that she was being deceptive.
I got a lecture on how tv programs work and was accused of being ignorant and libellous.
Nice to know that, as far as the EP is concerned simply telling the audience and judges that another of her dogs had been used was an option.

I really hope all this dies down soon.
I suspect this is really casting a cloud over her win for Jules.

Quite simply the responsibility for what is transmitted is down to those who make the programme.

Given that Chase wasn't on the stage at the end I could excuse Jules for not mentioning it in the heat of the excitement. If those in charge had deemed such a revelation necessary they could have prompted Ant or Dec to mention it. There should have been people looking through tapes of the rehearsals or there at the rehearsals to pick up on this. The fact that they did not or did not deem it important means the blame lies with them not Jules.

I just hope this thread stops people on here blaming the poor woman now. God knows what she must be going through.

I haven't seen the act yet but in the final act was any mention of other dogs being used in the act ?

If no mention was made that two other dogs were involved then Jules and the producers are responsible . If it was the producer's idea to not mention the other 2 dogs, Jules should have put her foot down and said no we have to say that 3 dogs are involved .

So they have admitted that a serious mess up was made and that people were deceived intentionally or by accident.

No matter which they took people's money under false pretences. That is against the law.

They can arrogantly keep her as their winner as what they do is not subject to the law, but voting systems involving money are and they won't be able to get out of that one.

The whole act has been tarnished and those coming second, robbed of a fair competition.

Yet they are trying to get her off of it - Yeah sure! SHE hid the other dog at the end no one else did! If she was playing fair, she would had all the dogs who took part on display at the end. She didn't! She is as guilty as hell.

The poor woman who didn't bring the other dog on at the end or say a single thing about it?

Pull the other one!

Shameful for other acts whose place she has taken.

I hope like the Russian entry at Eurovision, people voice their disgust at the Royal Variety Performance.

What a wonderful thing to show children that cheating gets you the fame and fortune that you want.

She has a mouth doesn't she and of course could have brought the other dog on to clear up any deception. She chose not to and so is complicit in the whole thing.

Jules is innocent. Simon Cowell said so and he's the executive producer.

Have you any idea how ridiculous you sound?

I don't think you can say it's 'under false pretences'.

Simon Cowell's only said anything because people were complaining. I doubt anyone would have even known if people hadn't got so worked up over a non-issue.


1. It's not arrogant.

And:

2. There was nothing wrong with the voting system used. People voted for the act as a whole, not just Matisse.


Jamie Raven wasn't robbed of anything. The competition was fair. He lost. If he wanted to win, he should have been a better magician.


Because the producers TOLD her to. She was hardly going to risk being kicked off the show by misbehaving behind the scenes. And it would have only gone against her; she'd have been called a 'diva' by papers no doubt.

It's not shameful at all. She won fair and square and people should stop hurling their abuse at THE WRONG PERSON.

How would you feel if people were calling YOU a fraud when it's not your fault?


I for one don't because it wouldn't be fair on Jules, who wasn't at fault.


She didn't cheat, she only did as she was told.

She can talk yes but if you were competing in a talent show with a £250,000 prize and a place on the Royal Variety, the last thing you'd do would be going against the producers.

I would not have voted for her had I known.

Not as ridiculous as you without and answer and having to resort to calling people ridiculous instead of addressing the post.

You didn't anyway, did you?

So not fair and square at all!

Why don't you understand that people were conned and rightfully object to giving money under false pretences.

In fact it's down right insulting telling other people how they should feel about being defrauded out of THEIR money.

How did you know? I didn't vote for her 5 times.

but I expected her to win, after the 3 legged dog appeared. So I think chase the stunt dog made quite a difference.

Just because a different dog walked the tightrope?

You do realise training two dogs to act will be harder than one (three if you count the three legged dog)?

Why not just answer posters instead of always trying to put down the poster due to the fact that you have nothing to counter the debate?

Fact: You don't know how many people would have voted differently had they known and so all we are left with is an act tarnished by deception and voters defrauded.

That before we get onto the other acts who have also suffered because of this whole thing.

People weren't conned.

If they paid to vote, that's their fault for not voting for free via the app.

If they voted because they thought Matisse walked the tightrope, then they did it wrong (you're supposed to vote based on the act, not one small part of it). Plus it's ridiculous considering two acting dogs is more talent than one.

'Suffered'.

The other acts have 'suffered' nothing. They've hardly been injured because of this.

He's admitted he didn't vote for her. He didn't even pay to vote for other act(s). Your arguments simply aren't credible.