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.
Ofcom are going to look into BGT scam, after 1,150 complaints
1 of 9
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.
Originally Posted by CpC:
“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.”
“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.”
Just to reiterate, this is a new development and Ofcom are taking this matter to the next stage.
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
Ridiculous. I hope all those people who complained think about the stress they are causing this poor woman now.
Originally Posted by CBFreak:
“Ridiculous. I hope all those people who complained think about the stress they are causing this poor woman now.”
“Ridiculous. I hope all those people who complained think about the stress they are causing this poor woman now.”
That will be an added pleasure for some of them.
Originally Posted by CBFreak:
“Ridiculous. I hope all those people who complained think about the stress they are causing this poor woman now.”
“Ridiculous. I hope all those people who complained think about the stress they are causing this poor woman now.”
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.
Originally Posted by CBFreak:
“Ridiculous. I hope all those people who complained think about the stress they are causing this poor woman now.”
“Ridiculous. I hope all those people who complained think about the stress they are causing this poor woman now.”
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.
Originally Posted by Old Endeavour:
“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.”
“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. 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.
Originally Posted by myscimitar:
“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.”
“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.”
So what that she got a monetary reward? She doesn't deserve this because people got disgruntled. And as I stated in quoting the above person, the act was telling a story where the narrative flow included a rope escape and Chase, as part of her act! was the dog more comfortable in the role. Why should she say sorry? She did nothing wrong. The Producers titled her act, have a go at them.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by TexAveryWolf:
“...amazed by the moral blindness of dog lovers.”
“...amazed by the moral blindness of dog lovers.”
I'm amazed by the pure viciousness of those who felt the need to demonise Jules for effectively nothing but sour grapes.
Not at all surprised to see Old Endeavour and myscimitar involved in this thread, sad trolls that they are.
Originally Posted by Kromm:
“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.”
“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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Kromm:
“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.”
“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.”
Even if one person felt they voted and paid to do so on a scam, they Ofcom have to look into it. Or should this idea that only a few people complained then it should be forgotten. Maybe on that logic police should do they same and ignore petty crimes.
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.
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?
Originally Posted by Andy2:
“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?”
“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?”
It was in the process of telling a story. The story would not seem fluid if she blatantly swapped dogs in front of the audience. It's like if a Magician' if they showed how a trick was done during the trick. The act itself was fair as it was. The complaints might have merit based on the fact there was no reveal of the third dog afterwards but that's not on Jules that's on the Producers.
Originally Posted by Andy2:
“Surely if the owner had been upfront about it (ie changing the dogs in full view) there would not be a case to answer?”
“Surely if the owner had been upfront about it (ie changing the dogs in full view) there would not be a case to answer?”
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.
Originally Posted by idlewilde:
“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.”
“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.”
But she should have brought it on after as she did in the semi
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.
Just a reminder that I didn't see this act and have only just taken an interest.
1 of 9
