That's ludicrous. You actually believe a multimillion pound costing investigation and legal verdict (what this would cost if pursued to the extent that they could undo a privately awarded prize) is mandated because 0.00168% of the population complained? Really? So I suppose every complaint where a handful bitch and moan merit the same, eh? Do you like the notion of bankrupting your nation?

And petty crimes ARE overlooked all of the time. Because a.) it's not a police state -- it's BAD for a society to pursue every minor violation, not good. With petty crimes you pursue multiple offenders--that's where the line is sanely drawn. b.) only in fantasy land does law enforcement have unlimited funds c.) only in fantasy land does law enforcement have unlimited (and qualified) personnel.

It's about proportion and dealing with reality (REAL reality, not reality TV). If there is legitimate concern over reality show manipulation, the proper course is to write your lawmakers and have SPECIFIC laws passed (rather than relying on vague after-the-fact panic driven actions put in the hands of a bureaucracy without specific enough mandate, who allegedly have to spend money investigating anything at all people gripe about). And not to punish some poor contestant who got put in the middle, but so that guidelines and ACTUAL laws exist to steer future broadcasts--ones they are obliged to meet WHEN making the shows, not that are debated and investigated after the fact. Big Brother and it's producers, for example, needs FAR more guidance (and FORMAL penalties) than poor Jules, a contestant on a talent show rather than whatever that farce Big Brother is, requires punishment.

You're about two weeks too late to join the discussion to be honest. In fact I'm not sure why it's still up for debate.

Oh, hasn't this new Ofcom thing just been announced? I got the impression it was all up again.

Why? Would you go to the theatre and expect every single person involved in a production to come on stage at the end so that you can satisfy yourself with how it was all done?

"Oh look, there's Bob, the lighting rigger. And there's Alice, the caterer. And that person there, that's Joan, who does the costumes"

Yup all staged to look like it was just one dog and hiding the extra dog at the end to continue the pretence.

I can take people desperately saying that black is in fact white, seriously at all.

Even the producers have admitted it and yet her fans are clutching at straws.

Oh shut up you stupid troll, you're the only desperate one here.

Fluidity of the act.

THEY DELIBERATELY HID THE DOG AT THE END - THAT'S A CON!

It clearly shows what they were up to and it stinks!

So you would expect, nay demand that a Magician after he's completed his magic act show the audience immediately afterwards how he did it?

The only con is the one you are making for yourself.

BTW
I am not a fan. I wanted the welsh choir to win. I just think this outrage is becoming ridiculous.

Except you've yet to prove that any damage was done, that the show results would have been ANY different if it had been presented with a different name for the act or more specific attention called to the name of the dogs in each segment, that investigating this is worth the taxpayer's money, or that it wouldn't serve the public interest adequately simply to punish the producers.

All you've proved, in fact, is that YOU'RE upset, that you're obsessed, and that you don't particularly care about other taxpayers (who's money you'd freely have spent to "fix" this).


So what?

Define "them". Define who was injured by this. Prove the result would have been any different otherwise. Prove providing the remedy doesn't hurt the public more than the fix (since investigations and courts aren't "free" or without enormous cost).

And finally prove that this simply shouldn't be handled by appealing to the people who make LAWS (not bureaucrats who dig through badly defined "regulations") to pass more exact laws that rather than wasting time and money in punishing a single instance, instead creating for the future more specific procedures that reality shows have to follow, so shows like this (but REALLY if we're being honest, shows like Big Brother) are accountable to BEFORE a show airs rather than being second guessed everytime against vague regulations and shifting public opinions.

It is in my opinion, especially this dog act.

What is presented in magic is the same kind of entertaining "story" which draws in and captivates the audience and provides them with an overall effect of witnessesing something extraordinary.

Jules' dog act did the same thing, told a captivating "story" using all the tools at her disposal, namely props and a combination of trained dogs, to produce a similar overall effect or illusion of something extraordinary.

It's entertainment, that's how performances work.

Well, clearly Ofcom think it's worth their time investigating, so, er...

But I had no idea I was watching a work of illusion comparable to that of a trickster. I thought I was watching one multi-skilled pooch perform physical feats of skill.

Had the act been described as Jules are her doggy magic tricks, then fair dos.

Why do the same posters keep posting the same mistakes?

It doesn't matter how many phone the police and report a murder, the number of reports doesn't make it any more or less important or change the fact that it will be investigated and action taken in proportion to the crime, not the number of people who reported it.

Ofcom are now investigating it and will be taking the appropriate action based on their findings not based on number of people who complained.

They are there to investigate whether viewers were misled in a paid for vote.

Sure as hell people would be up in arms if TV companies to just grab people's money after misleading them in every show and no one could do anything about it. That is what Ofcom is there for.

You were watching an overall performance wrapped up in a vignette style themed story for each. You got two multi-skilled pooches for the price of one. It's only comparable to a work of illusion of that of "a trickster" in that they entertain by having you watch something "extraordinary" for want of a better word.

Would people really not have voted for the act if the use of a 'stunt dog' was revealed at the time?

Of course they would. This is just the latest Tw*tter cause celebre that a few people have jumped on because they have something to gripe about.

And that part of the scam, she called the act Jules and Matissee, no other dogs named, and none brought on at the end that gave the impression it was only the one dog.

I would not have voted for the act with a stand-in dog! And don't think many would have.

Whilst there would have been some genuinely miffed these things do tend to attract "outrage tourists".

It's already been shown that the producers named the act, not Jules. She actually wanted to call it Jules and Friends.

But we all know you won't let facts get in the way of your hate campaign.

And did they stop her bringing the other dog on at the end, if so funny they didn't do that on the semi, or indeed gag her after the act to stop her saying she used a stand-in!

But you didn't vote for the act anyway, so this is utterly irrelevant.

Your obsession with this trivia seems a little unhealthy to me.

I think Ofcom will consider the fact that Chase clearly had his name on his collar, therefore to say it was a 'con', or an attempt to deceive is shown to be incorrect as she would have put them BOTH in collars saying Matisse?
I also thought that most people voted by the free app, thereby spending nothing on the vote, so to complain it cost them money, and they were deceived, is untrue. I hope Ofcom take that into account when looking at the matter as well.
Any person with a dog would have questioned the speed the dog entered the tunnel and came out onto the ropes, and how he got to the raised level. There must have been a platform for Chase, and a system for Matisse to get from one side of the tower to the other, unseen.
The producers must have built the set, and knew exactly what was happening. They decided the act name, and which dogs came on at the end.
I do not understand why there is all the bile for the act itself?
The magician was not the best, and the choir, were not good enough to win, even if you take the prize from her?

I don't know. I've not spoken to the producers personally and neither have you. So let's not pretend either of us know who said not to bring Chase out at the end.

And the first time Jules was asked about the rope trick, the next morning on national TV by Lorraine, she said Chase did it.

Once again showing how there was no intent to hide Chase.

But as I said, don't you let facts get in the way of your vendetta.

And after the act but before the voting when asked by Ant and Dec about Matisses training for the rope act, Chase didn't get a mention. Not that bothered just pointing out the facts.