It cost 50p to vote for gods sake. Unless 50p is all you had in the world, in which case I dout the last thing you'd spend it on is voting for a variety show act, it's not going to make any difference to you whatsoever. its 50p not 50 pounds.

Sorry, it's just that most people have a sense of perspective. Something that obviously had passed you by. Along with common sense.

Did we or did we not see Chase in the semi final? And thus know there was a double for Matisse? Did the dog walking the tight rope have a collar on that said Chase? Did Jules, when asked, at any point at all lie and say Matisse walked the ropes?

You're creating an issue where there isn't one, for reasons unknown to anyone with even a minute bit of common sense.

If there needs to be an investigation by ofcom there will be one and if found in breach of any rules refunds will be given for voters. What more do you want? Public flogging? Vilification? Walking the plank? Detention?

It's clear you've got some deranged vendetta against this woman and her dog. For reasons unknown. And the way you keep bandying about 'the law' is actually hysterical. And does nothing but show how ill informed and idiotic you are.

The shows executive producer has said she did zero wrong. And yet still you blame her, she's apparently the shows producer, the show runner, the stage hands and assistants now as well. Or instructed them to hide the dog, like they do as she says or like she is in charge of anything and not a contestant doing as told.

Yes, she has a mouth, and when asked about the rope walk the day after she used said mouth to say Chase did the rope walk.

You've not actually made any points. Just rambled on many threads like a deranged lunatic with issues.

And 'other' acts have 'suffered' because of this? In all honestly that comment shows a level of idiocy I can't actually comprehend.

Whatever your problem is with Jules and her dogs I suggest you get over yourself. Because quite frankly all you're doing is repeatedly making yourself look stupid.

This.

Maybe I should sue TV Choice because they claimed Miranda Hart was hosting The Generation Game and she denies it?

According to some people's definitions of the word, I've been 'conned' there.

In currently Suing both Twitter and the BBC. I heard Sue Perkins was the new top gear host and apparently she's not. I feel utterly conned.

I expect a full police investigation. Top gear makes billions. This is fraud on a gigantic scale. I'm furious!

If you'd like to sue TV Choice I can lend you the money once I get my top gear pay off.

Ps. For those too stupid to grasp, we are being sarcastic.

Oh dear. Its their fault because they didn't use a free app. Not everyone has access to the app!!
The 'act' was called Jules and Maltisse not Jules, Maltisse and his 3 legged mate with his stunt double

Has it ever occurred to you that people might have voted and felt good about it if they knew the truth. Some people feel 'conned'. They are allowed to feel that way if its their money.
Its not your money that they spent.
You seem to defend a little too much.

I've set up a new helpline for anyone who's been conned.

It's called 'I Give A **** About Your Problems'. Although it's actually a big con because I don't give a ****...OOPS, I shouldn't have said that. At least I didn't say it on Lorraine!

(Also sarcastic. )

Well that's their fault. If you don't have access to the app, you can't be expected to get away with voting for free just because there was a third dog you weren't aware of.

Except the other dog Chase was part of her act since the semi final.

Also: Jules can't be blamed for that. She wanted to call it a different name but it was generalised by producers to Jules & Matisse.

Only if they were truly conned, which they weren't.


I'm defending a innocent woman against something she's being blamed for which wasn't her fault and was pretty much a non-issue. I am a fan of the act and I defend things I'm a fan of.

Another person hell bent on defending. 50p is 50p. Its not your 50p.

Who are you to tell anyone that they don't have a right to comment on how their money is spent.
Maybe if they had been honest like in the semis they would have had the same amount of voters. No problem then.
The fact is that people that spent their money have a right to have their say. Just like you do.
You voted and spent your money and are happy about it. Great cos its your money and you have every right to be happy about it. Not to tell someone that its only 50p and not £50.
Does that mean you give permission for someone to feel conned of it were £50?

Please see comment above on last post.

That's a great idea. I won't mention the truth, then when it comes out I'll also be implicated and 'the law' with get is both! I suspect Lorraine will find the truth anyway, she's a proper one!

I'll be happy to donate with my Top Gear payout. Which I'm 100% sure I'll get because of the scale of the con.

I don't know how these people sleep at night!

Nobody was conned. Chase was a part of her act since the semi finals. Anyone who thinks they were conned are wrong; I'm sure the police would tell you the same.

I agree that it was said in the semis I said that!

Police. Please. If you actually read what I said I said how they felt. They felt they were conned (well I said feel to be exact). Its how someone was made to feel after spending their money.


Some people spent their money and felt conned. Its their money. They have the right to say how it made them feel. Its a simple concept.

Whether they were conned or not is irrelevant. The fact is the perception is there.
Therefore it was misleading. When someone spends their money and feels mislead as to why they spent their money they have every right to object without being told they have nothing to to object about.

Other people spent their money and were happy. That's great. The on es that weren't have every right to object.

Simple

No because they haven't been conned, but I could see why people would be more upset over £50 than 50p! Be honest, if you dropped £50 down a dirty difficult to reach gulley and could see it you would try your hardest to get it back. If you dropped 50p you would leave as its not worth the bother struggling. If you were in a restaurant you'd leave 50p as a tip , you wouldn't leave £50 though!

But that's you. Thats how you feel.

That doesn't mean that everyone else should feel like that. There are many like you that are happy. Then there are others that aren't. just like you have the right to be happy about it so do others have the right not to be cos it is their money.

Whether its 50p or £50.

Yeah when I want someone else's telling me what I can do with MY money I'll give you a call.

What is it with people who think that telling others what they can do with their money and how they should view being conned - Sorry but what a bloody nerve you have!

Exactly!

Sad when in the whole feeling of fairness, some are siding with the conning side and telling people how they should feel about being conned.

All because they obsess about a dog act that was set out to con people in the way it was set up and even after by hiding the extra dog.

What a bad day when some reject fairness over fandom for an act.

Yeah, but you didn't vote for the winning act either, did you? Just like all the other opportunistic whiners.

Don't give anyone a call.

You'll only accuse them of conning you and demand a refund for the call at some point.

Your best bet is to disconnect your phone and throw away your mobile. That way you can't be conned again.

Just for clarity (lest I be accused of conning someone), I'm not recommending that to save you from future 'cons' in doing it because it saves everyone having to listen to your deranged waffling claptrap again.

Your weren't conned. It was a real dog on the tightrope. Not a robot, animatronic, CGI, optical illusion or a person in a dog costume. A real live dog. Which is owned and trained by the same person as the the other dogs in the act.

Why is it that people were so amazed that a dog could walk a tightrope they wanted and voted for it to win, but now they know it's a different dog, still owned and trained by the same person, they don't think its that good? It's still a dog walking a tightrope no matter which dog it is! You were amazed at one being able to do it but not two? People honestly don't think she's that good now because she trained two dogs instead of one to walk a tightrope?

They don't have that right, though. They weren't conned and besides, it's their fault for spending money on the phone call instead of using the app.

So someone doesn't have the right to object about what they spent their money on. Oh and they should have just used the app as its their own fault.

This is hilarious.

I'm off to bed. Will leave you all to it. Night

Wasn't the voting very close between first and second . If the viewers had known 3 dogs were involved she may not have got as many votes .

Remember also a quarter of a million pounds is involved . The 2nd placed contestant could well have won the money .

No one was conned and yet they deliberately hid the other dog at the end, and no one said anything.

That was after an act where they deliberately mad it look like one dog going up and over and out the others side.

Some do like to post some utter nonsense just because they support the act.

According to them "Some producers were in tears" and apologise made when there wasn't any con.

Seriously have can anyone have a serious debate on here with the some just posting utter nonsense based on no facts at all.

Don't worry. If we were voting for 'The person who talks most nonsense' you'd absolutely come first. I don't think there's a doubt in anyone's mind about that.

And you're right, you can't have any form of serious debate with an idiot who has neither common sense or anything even resembling a sense of perspective respective. Or the ability to do anything besides repeat the same thing over and over.

I posted above, plenty of facts in my post. You ignored it because facts are not what you deal in. Random waffling and making it up as you go along is more your style.

You're monumentally boring and like a never ending broken record. So please, carry on with your inane waffling. But please understand that people see it as just that. Inane waffling.

The only people whose opinions seem to matter to you are those who watched every episode of the show and those who own smart phones. Why are you against people who don't have smart phones? I have several friends who earn more than me who choose not to have smart phones (I do have one and only voted from it). What's wrong with that? All some people require in every day life is a mobile to make and receive calls; some don't even need that. If they have spent their hard earned money on something which they later feel has been a con, it is none of your business, no matter how big or small the amount.

You also keep using the word 'since.' Chase has not been used 'since' the semi-final. Chase was used in the semi-final and that was made explicit by Jules. It was not made explicit by her in the final. Therefore the use of the word 'since' is incorrect.