I'm half tempted to ring them myself now Put this person out of their misery.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

That was down to the producers, NOT her.

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.

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.

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.

Have you rang the police yet?

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.

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!

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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).