My family and friends are honest people who also believe like a lot of the UK, this was a con.

I think there's a high probability that you are the only person you know who shares your obsession, or your strange opinion.

Define "a lot of the uk"

And so I assume they complained and are logged in the rest of the under 1000 complaints Jules received.

Are you sure you don't want that dictionary? You seem to now be struggling with 'a lot'.

Because there is no reality in which 1000 people is considered 'a lot of the U.K.' Or ever 'a lot' of the total 4.5 million people that voted. And to claim it 'a lot is nothing besides complete and utter nonsense.

What's your opinion of deliberately hiding the extra dog to mislead and con people then.

It was as fake as they could make it and you defenders are hilarious and all just because of your obsession with a dog act.

Fortunately there are laws in place to stop people getting con and saves us all from cover-up artists such as yourself.

As I already posted. But you have ignored several times.

The dog had a collar on with its name shown. The fact you claim you couldn't see it doesn't change the fact that the dog had a collar on with his name on. It also doesn't change the fact that when questioned Jules stated Chase performed the rope walk.

Had the intention to deceive been there the dog wouldn't have had that collar on.

Again you can spout your opinion as many time as you like. It's doesn't make it fact, or change the actual proven facts.

How long shall we go around in this circle?

Let's shorten it for the sake of speed. You'll reply with what is your opinion. Others will reply with actual facts proving you wrong. Facts which you'll ignore and continue to claim your opinion as fact.

Rince and repeat.

It's been pointed out a few times now in regards the styling of the act.
I also find it ironic that you are complaining about others "obsession with a dog act" when your own posts seem so determined to eek out every last drop of well everything to do with it.

Where is your passion over the fake crowd, during the audition phases? Where is it when the Magician (yes again) also didn't tell all the trades of his art? Where is it for acts miming?

The coller was the get out clause, that sadly some have fallen for, but as pointed out it was not in any way visible from the fast moving dog on screen, as the only way to see it was the paper blowing a still up.

Oh that's a new one.

But those of us in the real world who comprehend the meaning of words realise putting a collar on a dog with his name on it shows zero intent to deceive.

But please. Carry on ignoring any and every actual fact related to this and keep on with your vendetta.

Ps. See you didn't define 'a lot of the U.K.' as asked. What a shock!

So did you see the coller name on the night..

There is also the fact that despite Chase and Matisse being the same breed with the same colour markings they also have different types of markings.
The only way you can say it was deliberately misleading is if Jules imported a similar looking dog (Matisse and Chase are both hers) and had his markings altered to compare to Matisse.

As usual and expected you have repeatedly and spectacularly missed the point.

Once again. The fact it was there shows there was no intent to deceive. I repeat. If they had wanted us to think it was Matisse the collar wouldn't have been there. Jules wouldn't have mentioned it on TV next morning and we'd all be non the wiser.

I fail to see why you're finding that so hard to grasp.

The obsession is yours, not mine. I didn't vote for any of the acts.

The idea that anyone was "conned" is the product either of woolly minds or of bad losers' revenge fantasies. Either way, it should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Why was there NO mention of Chase in the final, especially when he carried out the most difficult part of the act ?

Only you and Mr. Old believe that's the way to "prove" her innocence (not that she should have to prove it). There's just a total disconnect from common sense or logic that it's even possible that nobody made some attempt to cover things up, but instead rather simply never thought the IDs of the dogs was an issue at ALL... until after the fact when it became tabloid and net-trolling bait.

Normal people don't think that way. A normal thought process wouldn't include the paranoid thought process "oh, people might see fraud in this if they're super-over-sensitive". No, a normal thought process would be that they're putting on a show and that they want it to tell a smooth unbroken story. You don't fold public paranoia and potential persecution into planning an act.

And... I see all the ranting here has gotten the BGT forum banished off the front forum page and now it's only a subforum. Good job!

And why some don't get this is strange!

Actually I think it got moved because enough time has elapsed to subcategorise it. Somewhat ironic that it's got moved to the "reality " section lol.

Anyway there are other clues as to why it wasn't deliberate deception imho. Not only were the collars different but Matisse and Chase are not identical just a close likeness. For a deliberate deception to have taken place one would have had to tint the fur of one or both animals. Also the timing between the disappearance of one animal and the appearance of the other was a bit quick, I did actually think that on the night. To be totally convincing bigger time lapses would need to have taken place. I think the swiftness of these actions further shows what a very tight time schedule they were on (the whole programme) and so the editing/production team would have been keen to cut out or leave out what they believed to be relatively unimportant. Stage direction would likely have been very strict and tight with little or no time for spontaneous deviations.

See a sane and informed discussion of how stage direction actually works and how that affects performers isn't going to wash with the insanity of the same one or two posters who just keep repeating the same two or three sentence objections over and over and ignore any counter-arguments or logic that doesn't suit them. They'll just act like they never saw your post.

And again, add the filter that a SANE non-paranoid contestant (as well as a sane non-paranoid show crew) would have NO reason to assume the dog swap would be an issue anyone would care about. Every time our local rabble-rousers scream and yell it's about how they "intended to pull the wool over people's eyes" or some similar phrase. No. Sure they didn't put a disclaimer or overtly say the dogs were switched. But why would anyone think they HAD to? Again, as I have before, I return to the example of the mixed media performances. Do they step up to a microphone after and point out exactly which bits were pre-recorded (and thus shouldn't be judged as part of their "live act"? Of course they don't! Are they defrauding people by not doing so? I don't see anyone claiming they are. This is the same in spirit as that. But try to get Old Cranypants and that other guy to acknowledge that.

^^This!


It wasn't hidden to deceive! You weren't supposed to know it was a different dog in the story! When you watch a movie don't you think it would kind of ruin the magic of the thing if during an action shot, they suddenly pointed out it was a stunt double not the actor doing the stunt? Most shows try and make a stunt double as unviewable as possible, so viewers can't tell it's not the real actor, not make them stand out with neon glowing letters and arrows!


What about those who have been banging on and on about this for what feel like months? Calling the defenders 'hilarious' isn't as odd as the unhealthy borderline obsession a few have over such a trivial matter. In fact I'd say it not even normal to be this wound up over something and someone that is naff all to do with you. It's not your act, it's not your dogs, it's not your money, it's not you who didn't win, so why are you so bothered about it?


The collar was visible on the screen, and asides from that, the two dogs don't look identical! Matisse clearly has a much wider white blaze on his face than Chase, and Chase is darker coloured too. Plus the obvious speed at which Matisse went through the door and appeared on the rope! You can't say you were deceived just because you didn't spot what was in front of you! It was there, plain as day that it was a different dog, people might not have spotted it, but it was there, as clear as the hole in that lemon.

Yeah it's one of those situations where they didn't or couldn't predict what the public reaction (or some of the public) would be. Whilst in retrospect it may have been wiser to bring out Chase at the end it was much too sloppy with too many clues to be a nefarious act of deception.

I wouldn't even call it "sloppy". As far as I can see they had no reason to even BEGIN to think anyone would object. There was no sane or rationale context for them to believe anyone would care, since it was just standard stagecraft. They neither tried to hide which dog did the trick NOR tried to draw attention to it, because logically to them it was irrelevant--the dog was playing a role in a story and the standin dog was playing the same role for one scene.

Okay, if people don't like the mixed media pre-recorded example lets go back to magic. Lets use a trick everyone in the world knows how it's done, because it's been revealed in dozens of "how it's done" segments (done by magicians themselves, since they know the trick is long "cooked") I mean does anyone really care that when you saw a person in half that maybe (in the version of the trick that's been outted--but there are others that haven't been) an unnamed person who isn't credited might be part of the trick too? Is that cheating too, since you don't walk onstage afterwards and introduce the second person?

This was not a 'magic trick' we voted on one dog doing a show, and how talented it was, other wise we looking at the old travelling circus acts with dogs, silly little simple tricks that we clap out of kindness, but not really much of a trick.

By "we" do you mean yourself? People voted for the act based on varying criteria it isn't possible to speak for everyone. Some people will have voted for the talent of the trainer, for others the narrative played a part, many will have given Skippy a sympathy vote and believe it or not there will be those who realised it was an ensemble.

Not even that. They speak on behalf of people who they think ought to agree with them. They didn't vote for the act themselves, so the criteria upon which they might themselves have based such a hypothetical vote are irrelevant.

You mean you?