She was NEVER going to mention Chase on the night, as I guess she knew she never have won, so she waited till she had her hands on the money and win and then mentioned it next day, the whole thing stinks!

Please, PLEASE shut up.

Some people are VILE and they delight in causing misery for others.

It might have a new name, but it USED to be called sh!tshtirring.

And it's really very sad

Still keeping the fantasy alive, I see.

Is there anything else in your life apart from this singular obsession?

You seem like quite the pessimist.

Just believe that someone who loves dog's should be honest, and hope Ofcom rules this was a scam.

Would it really make your life that much happier if it was, you pathetic troll?

Please show us the proof she was 'never' going to mention Chase?

She would have won. 1k people complained. If every single one of those 1k that complained voted for Jamie. Jules would still have won by a margin of 89k

But once again. Don't let facts get in the way of your vendetta.

When did Ant and Dec ask about Matisse doing the rope trick?

I've seen the act a few times now and don't remember them asking about the rope?

Please put a link to a video from YouTube showing ant and dec asking about the rope trick.

Actually my quote was in reference to the fact you seem to be coming up with worst case scenarios involving character assassination without proof of said accusation. As in looking at the worst in people.

I also don't understand how loving dogs has got anything connection to the issue at hand? In actuality, I think the fact it is a dog act is affecting the reasoning of those determined to cry foul rather then those who are not crying conspiracy.

As I've done so before it is fairly comparable to a Magician's act. Telling a story through a series of suspended belief. I don't see anything wrong with fulfilling that during the act itself. I may have some issue with the fact it was withheld afterwards but for me that's not a massive deal either.

For me there is no scam, there is just some mishandling by the producers and a mass over-reaction from half the complainers.

Right. And if the producers get fined? That's proper and not that hard to do. That's why regulatory departments exist--to punish and/or control broadcasters for stepping outside the bounds of what's allowed.

But if, as some nutters are suggesting, this is some huge national tragedy requiring stripping someone of a prize and going through the undoubtedly complicated and expensive procedures to do THAT? That's something totally else. That's something ludicrous.

They asked at some point how long it took to train Matisse to do the rope trick and the reply was a few months. Which of course is true, because Matisse can do the trick, it was just deemed better for Chase to do it as he doesn't mind heights. Bet after seeing all this hoohaa go on.. and on...and on....and on...and then on some more bet she wishes she'd said stuff it and made Matisse do the walk regardless. Oh but hang on, then there'd be people saying she was cruel to make him do something he didn't like, that she doesn't care about her dogs, that she abuses them....poor Jules, damned if she does and damned if she doesn't, she can't do right for doing wrong!

Poor Jules, all she had to do was tell the truth on the night before voting or bring Chase out after the act as she did on the semi. It was a clever act that was designed to pull the wool over our eyes.

Given how obsessed and outraged you are by this I genuinely have absolutely no idea how you cope with day to day life.

I feel terribly sorry for your friends and family having to put up with this level of outrage and gigantic over reactions at the tiniest non event.

Hey, have you ever thought of addressing the points raised instead of personally belittling the poster due to you being unable to counter their valid points?

Seems to be your goto response as you just can't counter the fact that the act was designed to deceive and that Jules was complicit in that act.

I've addressed any points raised a thousand times. As have a lot of other posters. But as usual posts stating facts are ignored and more diatribe spewed.

The act so very very clearly was not designed to deceive. The reasons and why's have been posted over and over again.

The extremely invalid points have been countered with facts time and time again.

If you can't see how the points have been address many times by multiple posters including myself you've obviously not actually been reading any of the threads on the subject.

But as I've said previously neither of you have let facts get in the way of your vendetta. So I doubt you'll start now.

You seem to be under some illusion that contestants make decisions like that themselves, rather than simply doing what the stage director tells them to do. There are blocking decisions and a timeline much tighter than in the semis, and it's only in people's imaginations that you can be so damn sure she could just arbitrarily go fetch another dog after the fact and take time for explanations.

The acts explain the basic construction of their performance to the BGT staff. Who then make demands based on the time allotted to the act and whatever "story" the show wants to tell with the act. The talent does what they're told, because it's in the contract they signed that they have to.

Also hindsight is 20/20 but foresight is NOT. There's no realistic scenario where anyone, certainly not Jules but to be fair even the producers, knew some newspapers but also some kooks on the Internet, would even CARE about this. From their point of view this was simply telling a narrative, and the talent was Jules' ability to train dogs and in the process tell that story without breaking the illusion of the story.

Compare it to lets say... the mixed media acts. BIG portions of those are pre-recorded. That would seem to be on one level an even bigger violation of "public trust" than a stunt dog, and it's never really highlighted in those which portions are pre-rerecorded and which aren't. The artists in the acts simply step in and out of the live performance bits, the pre-recorded bits do some fancy things to further the illusion, and the live person takes the final bow. Why aren't you just as outraged about those acts?

They don't have any. Nor do you.

Hope that helps.

Yes that helps a lot! See I was undecided if people were on a wind up posting just their opinion as the only facts in the most pompous arrogant manner.

Now I know!

"They hid the extra dog deliberately"

"There was no cover-up in the act"

Only one of those statements is true. If anyone can find a clip of the extra dog being shown after the act was finished then it will be line 2. Until then, let's all play in the real world.

If you could have shown a single scrap of actual proof that Jules set out to hide the dog then you would have done so by now.

All you have is your opinion. Which is shown to be wrong by facts.

Fact. The dog had a collar with his name on (saying, well I couldn't see it doesn't change this fact - he still had a collar on). He would not have if anyone wanted his identity as Chase hidden.

Fact. The first time Jules was asked about the rope trick she said Chase did it. Had she wanted this hidden. She wouldn't have done that.

Fact. The finale received a total of 1150 complaints.

Fact. 200 of those complaints were about the female judges dresses. Which means less than 950 were about Jules (Jamie received complaints too but I don't know how many).

Fact. Jules won by a margin of 90k. So if all of those people who have complained had voted differently then Jules would still have won. If 10x the amount who complained had voted differently. Jules would still have won.

Those are facts. Undeniable facts. Not my opinion. Facts. Based on actual events and numbers. Real actual fact.

You can dress you opinion up all you want and repeat it until you are blue in the face. But that's all it is. Your opinion. It is not a fact that Jules tried to hide Chase and you don't have one single solitary piece of factual evidence to show that she did. Why? Because there is non.

But as I've said previously, you will carry on dressing up your opinion as fact and the diatribe will continue because facts aren't what you're interested in. Taking any and all opportunities to snipe at Jules is all you're interested in. So please feel free to carry on.

Some of your "facts" are interpretations.

You cannot make a direct and incontrovertible correlation between those who complained to Ofcom and the relative voting margins.

Interpretive drift has led you into a rather common mistake amongst those who suffer from confirmation bias.

And I imagine Ofcom will be investigating whether standards and probity in broadcasting were breached, however knowingly or unknowingly.

So the argument is irrelevant.

That's the only comparison you can make. Anything else is just opinion.

People feel aggrieved so they complain. Of they don't complain they don't feel aggrieved enough to do so.

Of all those who complained voted differently Jules would still have won.

Let's be extremely generous and say 20x those who complained would have voted differently now. Jules would still have won.

There is no other way to look at it. It's either a fact or it's not. Anything else is just opinion.

Facts can't be interpreted any other way. They are facts. They're not 'my' facts. They're facts.

Ofcom con investigate what they like. It won't change the fact Jules is the winner and has done nothing wrong.

You appear to have some kind of medieval thought process where it's "guilty until proven innocent". I mean that's basically what you are saying when you state that we need to see video of the extra dog being shown on TV (something we all KNOW wasn't done) to somehow "prove" that Jules isn't a scheming liar who intended to defraud people. Only in your mind are those two things mutually exclusive.

Point #1: they didn't show any explanation of the additional dog on TV. Nobody is debating that, even if you're pretending that we are to try and score point off people. Point #2: This doesn't mean they set out to HIDE the information. They didn't expect it was an issue. They had no reasonable basis to THINK it was an issue, and that's why they didn't drag the extra dog out after the act and chew up extra show time blabbing about which dog did what. It wasn't an attempt to hide something, it was simply a REASONABLE assumption by them that nobody should or would care.

Again, you've ignored the many parallels presented by other posters. Magic acts have been discussed. Or in my own case I've talked about the mixed media presentations. Did any of them step out after their acts and say to the crowd "the people you saw at point X, Y, and Z of the act were actually pre-recorded bits (fraud!!!!!!) we presented as part of the act, and we've come out just to make sure you all knew that!"

No of course they didn't! The fact that you aren't on a crusade against those people simply boils down to you for some reason being fixated on this one contestant.

I will shut up if anyone can show again like the semi, she brought out the extra dog.. But it was Hidden from the public and not mentioned!