DS Forums

 
 

Stop blaming Jules


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-06-2015, 13:18
Sarah Anne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 683
No come on the police would have a field day with this. It would give them laughs for days. And in years to come you'd see it on those 10 most ridiculous police calls lists. It'd be great fun. And we should actively encourage them to report this crime.

I 100% think OE should call the police right away and report this heinous crime against humanity.
I'm half tempted to ring them myself now Put this person out of their misery.
Sarah Anne is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-06-2015, 13:25
Dalekbuster523
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
Yes but we are not discussing your opinion on it we are debating what Mr Cowell actually said. "I didn't really know what I was judging until afterwards so I felt like a bit of an idiot." Well if he felt that way, can you imagine what the people who parted with money felt about it and also the other acts that were just beaten by someone working a con.
Simon Cowell may have 'felt like a idiot' but after the angry conversations with producers he was probably rubbing his hands with glee at the controvesy its caused and money generated. He's hardly going to say 'It's a great time for the show because it has made me lots of money and caused plenty of controvesy'.

Also, those who voted for the act should be indifferent because it requires more talent to have three trained dogs in a acting dog act. So they voted for a even more worthy winner. And I doubt the acts care less because it wasn't a con.

To repeat the FACT: Jules wasn't 'working a con'. The producers told her not to bring Chase out.
Dalekbuster523 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 13:26
Dalekbuster523
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
Opinion not fact. Ignored.

Sorry but it really is the only way to deal with your constant avoidance and acceptance of anything that doesn't meet with your opinion: And that includes reality.

I have taken the rouble to set out what happens in law and how people that are complicit in that law break are also guilty and yet you dismiss that fact and reality and just state the opposite with nothing to back you up.
It isn't against the law, though. There was no money fraud in the act. The act was what it was. They were still dogs, there was just a extra dog. Jules gave those who voted more for their money.

I'd say that was generous of her, not a con.
Dalekbuster523 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 13:29
Lyceum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,123
Simon Cowell may have 'felt like a idiot' but after the angry conversations with producers he was probably rubbing his hands with glee at the controvesy its caused and money generated. He's hardly going to say 'It's a great time for the show because it has made me lots of money and caused plenty of controvesy'.

Also, those who voted for the act should be indifferent because it requires more talent to have three trained dogs in a acting dog act. So they voted for a even more worthy winner. And I doubt the acts care less because it wasn't a con.

To repeat the FACT: Jules wasn't 'working a con'. The producers told her not to bring Chase out.
It's hysterical isn't it. Someone believing that Cowell, the shows executive producer and the guy basically in charge of everything didn't know about Chase being there hahaha.

It must be true if he told the sun it.
Lyceum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 13:31
Sarah Anne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 683
I'm starting to feel silly. It's obvious old endeavour is messing about now. Nobody really believes it was a fraud lol, or that it's the same as killing someone. Nobody would be that desperate for 50 pence back (they wouldn't be wasting money voting) if they were. Also everyone knows Simon cowell is a hard man who lives off controversy. All his shows are manipulated and fixed yet year after year they reappear on our telly.
Well done Old Endeavour. You had everyone going I must admit I am relieved there arent really people out there who want the police involved.
I like your joke because everytime someone fell for a line- in typically great joke style you took a greater chance with your next line being more silly to wind people up more xx
Sarah Anne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 13:34
Lyceum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,123
I'm starting to feel silly. It's obvious old endeavour is messing about now. Nobody really believes it was a fraud lol, or that it's the same as killing someone. Nobody would be that desperate for 50 pence back (they wouldn't be wasting money voting) if they were. Also everyone knows Simon cowell is a hard man who lives off controversy. All his shows are manipulated and fixed yet year after year they reappear on our telly.
Well done Old Endeavour. You had everyone going I must admit I am relieved there arent really people out there who want the police involved.
I like your joke because everytime someone fell for a line- in typically great joke style you took a greater chance with your next line being more silly to wind people up more xx
This really is the only logical explanation.
Lyceum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 13:35
Kromm
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
It's not her fault. It's the producers.
This forum is NEVER going to get the point. Disgustingly people here NEVER want to blame Simon and the producers ever, and in future posts will simply ignore any evidence or logic in that direction and simply blurt out monolithic rants against contestants steered wrong by the show rather than risk indicting any bigger element of a show they CHOOSE to watch knowing it's run by manipulative people who make bad or unfair decisions almost constantly.
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 13:43
Old Endeavour
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
This forum is NEVER going to get the point. Disgustingly people here NEVER want to blame Simon and the producers ever, and in future posts will simply ignore any evidence or logic in that direction and simply blurt out monolithic rants against contestants steered wrong by the show rather than risk indicting any bigger element of a show they CHOOSE to watch knowing it's run by manipulative people who make bad or unfair decisions almost constantly.

Well I've just posted about Simon not actually knowing and being left feeling like an idiot and the deception that he had seen a woman do on stage in front of him.

Certainly the other producers are as guilty as hell, but the trainer was complicit in that deception and so not in any way innocent of it. That's the law, not my opinion.
Old Endeavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 13:46
Pink_flamingo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 61
Completely agree with you OP. Jules was let down, it was not that poor womans fault & its very sad that she has had her special moment ruined & been unable to celebrate because of all the aggro! She is a genuinely lovely lady who puts the welfare of her dogs first. She puts an incredible amount of time, effort & dedication into her dogs & for that reason alone, she to me, is a very worthy winner
Pink_flamingo is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 13:48
Lyceum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,123
Well I've just posted about Simon not actually knowing and being left feeling like an idiot and the deception that he had seen a woman do on stage in front of him.

Certainly the other producers are as guilty as hell, but the trainer was complicit in that deception and so not in any way innocent of it. That's the law, not my opinion.
Edit. Remove my post because actually I don't care.

Carry on. I'm off to watch Jules and Matisse's (and Chase and Skippy of course) 250k winning performance on YouTube. Because it was bloody brilliant.
Lyceum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 14:09
Dalekbuster523
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
Well I've just posted about Simon not actually knowing and being left feeling like an idiot and the deception that he had seen a woman do on stage in front of him.

Certainly the other producers are as guilty as hell, but the trainer was complicit in that deception and so not in any way innocent of it. That's the law, not my opinion.
That was down to the producers, NOT her.
Dalekbuster523 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 14:13
kimindex
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cornwall (ex-London)
Posts: 65,312
Have you any idea how ridiculous you sound?
Yes, she's hardly Sepp Blatter. Personally, I assumed the other dog would have been used during the act, as it was in the semis.
kimindex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 14:42
Paace
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,487
I wonder why she didn't use just Chase instead of Matisse since Matisse is afraid of heights .
Paace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 14:44
twells
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 708
I wonder why she didn't use just Chase instead of Matisse since Matisse is afraid of heights .
Probably, because Matisse is better at the other stuff.
twells is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 15:09
Old Endeavour
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
That was down to the producers, NOT her.
No she did it! She took those actions of deception on stage in front of millions.
Yes the producers were also involved but I don't know how many times I have to post the word "Complicit" for you to just ignore it. It's a legal term not an opinion. She was fully complicit in the deception and so not innocent of anything.

If I ask you to lie for me and you do, then you are complicit in that lie and so guilty of that.

Your opinion doesn't change a thing.
Old Endeavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 15:49
Sarah Anne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 683
Have you rang the police yet?
Sarah Anne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 16:13
Kromm
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
No she did it! She took those actions of deception on stage in front of millions.
Yes the producers were also involved but I don't know how many times I have to post the word "Complicit" for you to just ignore it. It's a legal term not an opinion. She was fully complicit in the deception and so not innocent of anything.

If I ask you to lie for me and you do, then you are complicit in that lie and so guilty of that.

Your opinion doesn't change a thing.
But many of the raving lunatics in the varied topics on this forum are implying that her degree of complicity equals her either going to jail at worst, or at best being stripped of her prize, no doubt after some VERY expensive legal proceedings. And that doesn't strike you as ridiculous?

Sure there's a legal concept of complicity. But there also typically are considerations of how serious an offense is in the end, and also the state of someone's knowledge at the time. If someone is instructed to do something by a show producer, they may be cooperating, but their state of knowledge is mostly bound by the (likely correct) belief that their only options are either to cooperate, to put up a fight and be tossed off the show, or to quit in protest. And it sounds like the people laying equal (or in many cases ALL) of the blame at poor Jules' feet are basically saying she should have walked rather than cooperate. Which again doesn't include any acknowledgement that from the moment they enter the contest they're made to sign contracts, and even walking has consequences for them.

Or... excuse me. I'm probably incorrect about one thing. People aren't suggesting she should have quit... they're mostly IGNORING the choice she would have had to make, because to do so implies they'd have to admit the show had some fault, and just laying it ALL at her feet. Maybe not you, the person I quoted, but a ton of people. They just refuse to think through anything past their outrage and tendency towards easy targets and the embarrassment of having to admit they watch shows that regularly commit fraud (and who make contestants cooperate, or else). I mean this is the same public who puts up with how Big Brother is run, and yet who freak out whenever it's suggested that show is unfairly run.
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 16:19
myscimitar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
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.
Yes she as much to blame as she could have brought the other dog on at the end as she did in the semi, But my guess she knew this by not doing so it was a vote winner!
myscimitar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 16:55
kleinzach
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 727
No she did it! She took those actions of deception on stage in front of millions.
Yes the producers were also involved but I don't know how many times I have to post the word "Complicit" for you to just ignore it. It's a legal term not an opinion. She was fully complicit in the deception and so not innocent of anything.

If I ask you to lie for me and you do, then you are complicit in that lie and so guilty of that.

Your opinion doesn't change a thing.
I love it when posters claim that their opinion is fact and others' opinions are just opinions. It's your OPINION that there was fraud. It's not a fact.
kleinzach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 17:22
Dalekbuster523
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,533
No she did it! She took those actions of deception on stage in front of millions.
Yes the producers were also involved but I don't know how many times I have to post the word "Complicit" for you to just ignore it. It's a legal term not an opinion. She was fully complicit in the deception and so not innocent of anything.

If I ask you to lie for me and you do, then you are complicit in that lie and so guilty of that.

Your opinion doesn't change a thing.
She was TOLD to do it by producers. Jules was hardly going to risk her place on the show by going against them when £250,000 is at stake.
Dalekbuster523 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 17:26
Sarah Anne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 683
She was TOLD to do it by producers. Jules was hardly going to risk her place on the show by going against them when £250,000 is at stake.
Exactly. Steve brookstein off the xfactor is known as an argumentative, bitter so and so. And all because he wanted to record his own music and went against Cowells wishes. You don't prosper in the entertainment industry once you upset the likes of Cowell!!!
Sarah Anne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 17:41
Kromm
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
It's amazing. People act like the contestants have a choice. Sure they do. Defy Cowell and his co-producers and at best get kicked off, and at worst, get blacklisted and never work again, or maybe get sued for breach of contract, or some other similar consequence.

The contestants have no power, no leverage, etc. They do what they're told or we never see them at all.
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 17:47
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,047
Jules was told not to reveal the other dog by producers. There is no agreeing or disagreeing about it. It is a fact.
Did the producers know that she had another dog who could walk across ropes ?

They only knew because she told them.

I see it as a conspiracy between all involved.
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 18:09
kleinzach
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 727
There is no conspiracy. There were always more dogs involved in the act apart from Matisse. This has been stated by the head of ITV entertainment.
kleinzach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2015, 19:02
Kromm
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
Did the producers know that she had another dog who could walk across ropes ?

They only knew because she told them.

I see it as a conspiracy between all involved.
What does that first sentence have to do with either the price of tea in China OR this situation? It's like (as in most of the posts on this subject) people are just spitting out random sentences which don't even make sense.

Of course they knew she had multiple dogs and what each dog could do. And you ADMITTED they knew because she told them. So how does that make her guilty of fraud? SHE TOLD THEM.

If she'd withheld information from them you might have an argument of her guilt. Her telling them supports the very OPPOSITE argument, because it put the decision in the producer's hands and she just had to do what they instructed (or get tossed off the show).
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.