Its happening in the raven thread also, 2 fans are spamming and shouting forum members down, calling them thick and stupid etc

Perhaps all the other acts who used off camera assistants to perform their "talent", like stage hands at a magic show, should be subject to a full investigation too?

3 dogs were clearly used, i noticed immediately during the act.

It did not affect the act in the slightest.

It's all about the punctuation. The other serial whiner starts the threads. You just can't resist joining in the whining. Neither of you have anything new or interesting to say.

The other finalists can't say a thing, they were voted out fair and square because people didn't want them or think they were good enough. Their not going to suddenly change their mind!


Actually I bet 99% of those that did complain did so because they were just jumping on the bandwagon with the rest of the Twitter sheep. One person probably went #goingtowhingetoOfcom and the other 999 went #baaa-metoo!!

[quote=Daewos;78396302]
Yet, the TV quiz show was in the newspapers after the first audition went out, and his training and his masterclass with Pavarotti was on the BGT website throughout. There was absolutely nothing to show he WASN'T trained. Manipulation levels were much higher in later series, believe me.

The simple facts were that Paul was a phone salesman and although he'd had training - something he spoke about in newspaper interviews throughout the show - this was published on the day of the final:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/200...v.broadcasting

The Sun did their own attempt at twisting the story. The facts remain that the BGT website at the time had all of Paul's training on it, including the masterclass with Pavarotti.

He was also on This Morning the Monday after the audition went out and spoke about his training on live TV.

if you want the facts from the horses mouth, then you need to read Paul's autobiography (which he wrote himself, not using a ghostwriter) which covers the whole period.

You can be both trained and not aware of your own talent and not have any confidence.

In fact, not having any confidence would probably be the reason for not being aware of one's talent. That goes for anyone.

[quote=kleinzach;78396819]
The simple fact was that Paul spent years and a lot of money to get his career off the ground. And if selling his soul to Cowell was the cost he paid it. And good on him as he got a career out of it.

The vast majority of viewers would have based their decision on what they saw at the time and voted on his performance. The nice voice and the sob story would have worked wonders. But, there was NO mention of training or previous television appearances on BGT so most of the voters would have based their decision on what they saw at that time. I highly doubt that voters were checking online or in newspapers to make sure all was above board before paying to vote for him. After all you had a very small time window to vote for your favourite.

Anyway, doubt we wil agree so best to probably just disagree.

The ofcom complaints I believe also include total complains. So anything anyone had to moan about basically. And as per the other thread both Amanda and Alisha's dresses also received complaints. So no idea how many out of that 1000 were complaining about Jules.

Basically 1000 people have complained to ofcom about the show. Not 1000 have complained about Jules (1043 actually).

According to a BT a news article 190 people complained about Amanda's dress (100 contacted ITV and 90 contacted ofcom).

People also complained about the large hole in the Lemon Jamie used (honestly I can't comprehend that level of sadness, complaining about a hole in a lemon).

So both dresses worn my he female judges received complaints. Jamie's lemon received complaints and Jules received complaints.

So it's even less then I original said are feeling duped. As not all of the 1043 complaints are about Jules.

It really is a staggeringly minute portion of voters that feel duped. Same here. Seems to be two posters shouting the loudest and spewing the most vitriol and nonsense all the while ignoring the common sense of the rest of the people posting.

So basically people complained that Jamie didn't perform actual magic. My God how sad do people need to be to do that???

It's actually astonishing isn't it.

I can't imagine being so sad that i'd watch the show and be so overcome with outrage because I thought the hole in the magicians lemon was too big that I just HAD to call and complain. It's a level of idiocy I genuinely can not comprised.

Hahahahaha. It's hysterical.

Presumably most of those people are so stupid they think Ofcom offers some kind of voting appeal process.

According to this page:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enf...ce-complaints/

it wasn't just Sunday's finale;. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday's episodes each independently attracted more than 10 complaints (the only other shows to do so that week were Big Brother and EastEnders).

I wonder does Jules also have some trained assistants . I mean to put Chase onto that high wire with split second timing, then maybe another assistant to release matisse out of the room, the person would have to be someone they were familiar with and trusted . I take it the act was live .

Imagine being the person at ofcom on the other end of the phone and having to be polite and understanding while some twonk is going on about the hole in the magicians lemon.

Or being the person who reads the email complaints. Hahaha they must have some crackers.

I should imagine that all whom work for Simon sign a form ' sort of Simon says.'

I would love to see some of the email complaints they get! I bet their really whackjob because it doesn't cost anything to send an email and you wouldn't have to try and keep a straight face and not laugh down the phone at the sheer idiocy of the complaint you were doing. I'd like to have been the one who answered the call about the lemon though:

Ofcom: what is your complaint?
Caller: I'm outraged and extremly upset at something I watched
Ofcom: could you give us the details please?
Caller: I saw a magic act on TV where a magican appeared to have put a note in a lemon, turns out there was a hole in the lemon and the entire thing was just a damn trick!
Ofcom:*inwardly sobbing* not another one

Well the above explains the thread which puzzled me.

I do know about Ofcom and it is extremely unlikely they'd strip her of the title. The MOST they'd do is demand ITV give the money back to those who vote as they have done so in the past.

I would imagine that Ofcom have got better things to worry about than whether a dog trainer uses a dog in her act, whether a magician has a hole in his lemon or the dresses that the judges wore. I would love to be a fly on the wall in their offices, it must be one of the funniest places to work.

No.

Ofcom will investigate whether viewers were knowingly or unknowingly misled as to the nature of the act, given that the votes involve expenditure for the voter, and revenue for the producing company.

You know, boring things like standards, ethics, and potential fraud.

Anyway, back to the ad hominems......

So do people really believe that the note got into the lemon without any intervention and that needs to be inestigated?

A dog entertainment act using dogs need to be investigated?

Alexi Dixon and Amanda Holden's dresses need to be investigated?

I would like to think you are joking with your comments but unfortunately, looking at the forum I suspect you may not be.

Plus the fact a £1/4 of million pounds was involved between winning and not winning .

The lemon and dresses are a joke and a waste of anyone's time but the dog act is different when £1/4 million goes to the winner and said winner misled the viewers .

Good lord. With millions of viewers you actually believe ten complaints is a lot?

People put on school plays in small villages that get hundreds of complaints and you actually think around 10 is somehow intolerable for a nationwide broadcast?

Amazing.

Er... no.

OFCOM use that page to list viewer complaints. 10 is their cutoff for inclusion on that page, I made no comment whatsoever. My point was that BGT seems to attract complaints, so there being some for the final isn't an indication that something heinous occurred, it's par for the course for that show.

There was (almost certainly) no effect on the outcome though. Given that the act won by 90,000 votes you'd need to find at least 45,000 votes that people now want to retract (if by some specious logic you want to claim they'd all go to the second placed act).

These "precarious" votes just don't seem to exist though. Everyone who voted for the act seems content. The only people screaming about fraud and deception are those who didn't like the act anyway and are looking for a stick to beat it with. It's pointless having the debate with them. We need to find the genuine voters who feel duped, and then have the discourse with them about whether or not they were actually misled. I can't imagine for a second they would convince me of their case anyway, but it's the absolute minimum starting point.

I heard that it was Mulhern who helped the dog onto the wires.