BiB- like all those who foam at the mouth in impotent rage they will be back next year and no doubt will find something else to get all "Daily Mail" about. Although why anyone should be surprised at a Cowell show being a bit underhand is a mystery to me.

Yes, and it's blatantly clear that it's solely because YOU personally don't like the act, rather than being able to present any genuine ethical objection. You're up in arms about "deception" while lying your tits off on here that you voted for the act. Kinda stupid?

Define "large".

And there's no way in hell she'll be stripped of the title, stop being ridiculous.

If they strip her of the title, then I'm leaving this pathetic country.

They won't, though because Ofcom actually hold some common sense.

The title of this thread has really tickled me

One thing is an absolute: You don't have any right to tell anyone what they can or should do with their money. You don't have that right.

Because reading the threads it's blatantly obviously some don't have the common sense they were born with.

And genuinely believe the Cowell press machines.

And other seem to be after any angle at all to have a go at Jules. No matter how many straws they need to clutch at doing so.

You've been banging on about laws and investigations for days now.

What did the police say when you called to report this heinous crime you've previously likened to murder?

He didn't even vote for them!

Let's not forget Ashley, the girl with a pet dog came from a family of dog trainers, was a member of the little kennel club etc. so very far from just a girl and her pet dog.

I'm quite frankly outraged, I plan to sue every winner personally. I mean Diversity weren't even diverse. They were all blokes!

Good point. Well Old Endevour, when are they going to arrest her? And what of the dogs? Can they be arrested as accessories?

Nobody is telling you what you should or shouldn't do.
You should be banned from voting though as the outcomes upset you so much!

Did you read further up OE is s stage hypnotist apparently. hahahahaha how hysterical is it that a stage hypnotist is accusing any other act of deception.

You genuinely couldn't make it up could you.

I also find it amusing they're claiming nobody has the right to tell people what to do whilst telling people how to feel and think. And STILL banging on about 'the law'.

And, lets be honest, some of Attraction were not that good looking. Breach of Trade Descriptions?

And Paul Potts sang for Bath Opera and was he not involved with training with Pavarotti. So much for being a phone salesman at Carphone Warehouse.

Exactly. Plenty of the acts are not what they're presented as. But nowhere in the rules does it say you have to be an armature. It's not called Britain's Armatures have got talent.

Some are obviously just jealous because they have no talent that could net them 250k. Or that or outraged because of the millions and millions of people in Britain the most talented is a dog.

Or they're trolling. Because some of these comments surely can not be genuine.

But that's not YOUR money. It's the production company's. Your right to dictate it is pretty limited given that your "investment" in it is 50p. Or maybe not even if you didn't vote for her.

Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.

I don't have to because I seriously doubt they'll strip her of the title.

Bath Opera are an AMATEUR company and he had a single masterclass with Pavarotti. That doesn't mean he trained with Pavarotti. He most certainly was a phone salesman at Carphone Warehouse.

You do realise that libel applies to online forums don't you?

Paul Potts was presented as an amateur no matter what anybody says.

And you know what? I don't mind. I voted for him back then because he was a damn good singer.

Just like Jules O'Dwyer is a damn good dog trainer.

The ofcom complaints have hit 1000.

Apparently there were around 4.5 million votes. So less that 0.3% of the people that voted have complained.

So very very clearly not 'a lot' of people feeling conned. Else more than 0.3% would have complained.

Feel free to carry on saying 'large' but 0.3% of any sum is not 'large' no matter how many times you try to say it is.

Fact is. Not a lot of people feel conned at all. In fact 99.7% of the people that voted, don't feel conned.

So you're assuming ofcom will strip Jules of the title because 0.3% of the people that voted have complained?

Perhaps take a step back and apply a little common sense.

No I think you will find that voting involving money has quite a few laws and regulations attached to it.

It's not the first time ITV have been caught up in a voting scandal is it and few other TV channels have given full refunds due to what is being voted for having been misrepresented.

Fair above the board voting for something where unclear deception hasn't taken place doesn't upset me at all.

Sad that all laws and regulations are deemed null and void and posters get belittled just because someone likes an act and will post that black is white as long as their act survives.

It is simply being pointed out that he wasn't a complete a mature with zero experience as he was portrayed.

Basically the producers choose to portray people how they like and you can bet your life Paul was told not to mention any of the above.

If liable applies to forums then more then a few posters had better hope Jules doesn't read DS, and if she does she doesn't decide to take action. Since she's been labeled everything from a liar, animal abuser and by one poster her actions were likened to murder. There's quite a few here she could take to the cleaners.

This isn't a voting scandal in any sense of the term.