|
||||||||
Ofcom are going to look into BGT scam, after 1,150 complaints |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
|
Ofcom are going to look into BGT scam, after 1,150 complaints
So Ofcom have started looking into the winner, and to see if viewer's have been mislead. I hope they find this the case, and everyone get's the voting money back and Jules is stripped of the win.
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 192
|
You need to move on and let this go, she won, get over it. You probably didn't even vote. Who did you want to win? Who ever it was didn't, so move on, and get over it.
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 663
|
Quote:
You need to move on and let this go, she won, get over it. You probably didn't even vote. Who did you want to win? Who ever it was didn't, so move on, and get over it.
I don't expect them to impose any fine - possibly ITV might be forced to offer a refund for those who wish it - but it at least proves what dozens of crazy posters on here have been blind to, that there *is* something worth investigating. So please no more "get a life", "move on", "you weren't misled" etc etc |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Why should we move on when Ofcom feel there is something to be investigated?
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 22,063
|
Ridiculous. I hope all those people who complained think about the stress they are causing this poor woman now.
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Middleton
Posts: 13,832
|
Sad times do people still care for this lol
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6,967
|
Quote:
Ridiculous. I hope all those people who complained think about the stress they are causing this poor woman now.
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,746
|
Quote:
Ridiculous. I hope all those people who complained think about the stress they are causing this poor woman now.
She was complicit in the deception. If she doesn't like it, she should have done something about it. That is fact and no excuse or sod story will change that. What a shame you can't feel sorry for the other acts who lost out because of this con. |
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
|
Quote:
Ridiculous. I hope all those people who complained think about the stress they are causing this poor woman now.
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 22,063
|
Quote:
Save the sob stories for the show!
She was complicit in the deception. If she doesn't like it, she should have done something about it. That is fact and no excuse or sod story will change that. What a shame you can't feel sorry for the other acts who lost out because of this con. There was no deception. It was part of the act. She had used a second dog before as well but no-one complained then. The act was telling a story and for the rope trick, Chase was much more comfortable doing it then Matisse. It's called creative License. Quote:
poor woman, she won a huge amount of money with a show that pulls the wool over the public to vote for her. I would feel sorry for her if she gave said sorry, I made a mistake and pulled out from winning.
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
|
1.) I'd be surprised if it's 1,150 VERIFIED unique complaints. Likely it's 50 people writing, emailing or calling in over and over. Because some people are just imbalanced.
2.) Even if it were 1,150 people, that's NOTHING, especially over the course of many weeks after the press has pounded this to death. Do some calculations compared against the UK population, okay? Something like 64.8 million, I believe. 1150 is 0.00168%. Do I have to explain why taking the opinion of 0.00168% of the population as a mandate is ludicrous? 3.) Even if they took action, what ever gives anyone the idea that SHE'D be penalised? The SHOW would be. In no sane or halfway legal world could she be penalised for filling every contractual condition placed in front of her. If the conditions were unfair to other contestants? The remedy for that is placed at the feet of the people who implemented those conditions--the producers. 4.) Even a vague statement by OFCOM saying they are investigating doesn't mean anything is actually being done. It's a bureaucracy. They of course have a file for this due to even ONE complaint but that doesn't mean action has to follow. Just insane that people are still banging on about this. Dotty. If OFCOM did more than simply take complaints and noncommittally shake their heads in mock-agreement, they'd be irresponsible idiots wasting public money. |
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 766
|
...amazed by the moral blindness of dog lovers.
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 22,063
|
Quote:
...amazed by the moral blindness of dog lovers.
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,636
|
Not at all surprised to see Old Endeavour and myscimitar involved in this thread, sad trolls that they are.
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bedmond, United Kingdom
Posts: 399
|
This is really old news, what is it with these trolls, just let it go.
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 663
|
Quote:
1.) I'd be surprised if it's 1,150 VERIFIED unique complaints. Likely it's 50 people writing, emailing or calling in over and over. Because some people are just imbalanced.
2.) Even if it were 1,150 people, that's NOTHING, especially over the course of many weeks after the press has pounded this to death. Do some calculations compared against the UK population, okay? Something like 64.8 million, I believe. 1150 is 0.00168%. Do I have to explain why taking the opinion of 0.00168% of the population as a mandate is ludicrous? 3.) Even if they took action, what ever gives anyone the idea that SHE'D be penalised? The SHOW would be. In no sane or halfway legal world could she be penalised for filling every contractual condition placed in front of her. If the conditions were unfair to other contestants? The remedy for that is placed at the feet of the people who implemented those conditions--the producers. 4.) Even a vague statement by OFCOM saying they are investigating doesn't mean anything is actually being done. It's a bureaucracy. They of course have a file for this due to even ONE complaint but that doesn't mean action has to follow. Just insane that people are still banging on about this. Dotty. If OFCOM did more than simply take complaints and noncommittally shake their heads in mock-agreement, they'd be irresponsible idiots wasting public money. Ofcom receive complaints all day every day about shows. They investigate very few. This one merits investigation, which is the important bit. One point I agree with on - the act herself won't be censured or criticized in anyway. If fault is found, Syco/Fremantle will carry the can. So no need to worry there. Now let's just wait and see what they rule. We could be in for quite a wait. |
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 17,852
|
This is great. The slavering mob is getting close to securing a prize scalp. We will not be denied. Heads must roll, figuratively. Only then will we be placated. The gathering storm. The gadarene swine. The game's afoot.
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
|
Someone should make a sitcom about working at Ofcom. You could play it with them as put on saps having to listen to endless petty complaints. Or you could play it with them as tin pot bureaucrats poking their noses into everything. Or both, with the bosses one way and the phone reps the other.
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
|
Quote:
1.) I'd be surprised if it's 1,150 VERIFIED unique complaints. Likely it's 50 people writing, emailing or calling in over and over. Because some people are just imbalanced.
2.) Even if it were 1,150 people, that's NOTHING, especially over the course of many weeks after the press has pounded this to death. Do some calculations compared against the UK population, okay? Something like 64.8 million, I believe. 1150 is 0.00168%. Do I have to explain why taking the opinion of 0.00168% of the population as a mandate is ludicrous? 3.) Even if they took action, what ever gives anyone the idea that SHE'D be penalised? The SHOW would be. In no sane or halfway legal world could she be penalised for filling every contractual condition placed in front of her. If the conditions were unfair to other contestants? The remedy for that is placed at the feet of the people who implemented those conditions--the producers. 4.) Even a vague statement by OFCOM saying they are investigating doesn't mean anything is actually being done. It's a bureaucracy. They of course have a file for this due to even ONE complaint but that doesn't mean action has to follow. Just insane that people are still banging on about this. Dotty. If OFCOM did more than simply take complaints and noncommittally shake their heads in mock-agreement, they'd be irresponsible idiots wasting public money. |
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 727
|
It has nothing to do with the veracity of the accusations. If enough people complain, no matter how spurious their complaint, then OFCOM are bound to complain. So I would not read too much into it.
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vault 101, Cheshire
Posts: 10,184
|
I don't watch these shows so I can't say much about this matter, but didn't the change-over from one dog to the other take place out of sight behind a door or something? That indicates to me that she may have been trying to bamboozle the audience. Surely if the owner had been upfront about it (ie changing the dogs in full view) there would not be a case to answer?
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 22,063
|
Quote:
I don't watch these shows so I can't say much about this matter, but didn't the change-over from one dog to the other take place out of sight behind a door or something? That indicates to me that she may have been trying to bamboozle the audience. Surely if the owner had been upfront about it (ie changing the dogs in full view) there would not be a case to answer?
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 8,502
|
Quote:
Surely if the owner had been upfront about it (ie changing the dogs in full view) there would not be a case to answer?
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In your house, guy's Butts
Posts: 3,194
|
Quote:
Look, I know Harrison Ford didn't really hang off the back of trucks and swing on vines onto planes as Indiana Jones, but it would have kind of ruined the moment to have the stuntman occupy the screen at the same time during the switch.
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vault 101, Cheshire
Posts: 10,184
|
Wat was the act called? If it was just 'somebody and her dog', then it sounds a bit strange that there were other dogs filling in to do some of the more difficult stuff. If it was just 'A Dog Act' then there'd be no complaint.
Just a reminder that I didn't see this act and have only just taken an interest. |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.



