Besides, even were it true they thought they were voting for a dog rather than for a human, they were wrong (hint: a DOG can't legally win the prize).

Also, sweeping statements like "it's not like a magic trick" are correct only insomuch that it's a totally different form, but the point wasn't about the kind of act, but that acts like magic acts use unseen people and deception. Acts like mix media acts use pre-recorded performances and don't inform you they're technically not material you should be voting on. No doubt if we really looked closely at MANY kinds of acts, they'd have aspects that are hidden from viewers, present an illusion, or seem to present one thing as another. Not realising this is on the viewer, not the show, because the show is very reasonably presenting the illusion to be judged, not the mechanics of it.

And the whole thing of talent shows and reality tv is smoke and mirrors anyway. Any person sensitive to things being "fair" is better off being a million miles away from reality tv.

In the end what programme makers are all about is providing entertainment for the masses not opportunity for the wannabes. The ones most likely to make it and break into the entertainment business have been preselected and often pre-auditioned or scouted. A lot of those that look like they've spent their lives singing into hairbrushes in their bedrooms on VTs are actually professional or semi professional. Anyone they want to sign up will be signed up irrespective of final placing.

How the heck do you think we ended up with a final that was a variety show in itself? It was done to make sure we didn't end up with all dancers or all singers etc etc and done by clever running orders, emotional VTs, pitching X against Y and Z knowing full well that the dice are already loaded in X's favour. Voters are always being misled and often controversy is actively courted to further the column inches and get the series to make headlines long after (and sometimes before) its actual run.

That's not to say reality shows should be able to do whatever they want. But there's a big difference between a show like BGT using the SAME kinds of stagecraft any actual stage show would use to enhance an act, and how a show like Big Brother completely arbitrarily rewrites the rules and overtly lies about things seen on the show. The first is a molehill. The second a mountain.

Very true. Also many BGT and X Factor contestants have armies of backing dancers and singers, choreographers and stylists to "enhance" their performances and make them seem better than they are.

Edit: And lets not get started on the enhancements sound engineers can provide.

All very true but I still think the majority of viewers take an act on face value and don't know about all the manipulation that takes place . It's only when these shows get found out in their deception that a big fuss is made . Like the big stink that took place on the Xfactor awhile back about auto-tuning i.e enhancing the singers voice .

I believe that 99.9% of viewers believed that Matisse alone did that final act on his own . There was no reason to think otherwise . One man and his dog will garner more sympathy and votes .

In that case, perhaps Jules should have pretended to be a man...

Anyway, where is your evidence for this "sympathy and vote garnering" claim?

No, I've not been going on about it. I posted a lot when it was on and just after it finished, like most others on here, but I've barely posted since. I'm looking forward to seeing
Jules's act in the Royal Variety, and whatever else she does, but other than that I've forgotten about it, moved on. As have the rest of the public, except it seems for one or two , who for some unfathomable reason, can't.

You do seem a touch obsessive, I presume this will be you're last post on the subject, if you're able to "move on" unlike the haters, (leave it to offcom, for your own peace of mind)

I think ITV will be in trouble. People voted for a solo dog act only to discover a decoy dog had been used, that's misleading people. So those who voted do actually have a claim.

And why some on here don't get this, I have no idea, misleading is the nice way of saying this was a con.

If I and others weren't replying, there'd only be threads and posts villifying the poor woman with nobody in her corner. I'd like to think if I had a bunch of people after me like a dog with a bone (actually I have and it's not nice), somebody would be on my side. And I obviously had to post the last couple of posts to be able to give you a reply.

For the millionth time, since the semi-final it was made clear to the viewers that it wasn't a solo dog act!

Not in the final was it made clear!

Exactly. It's about opposing the mob - the noisy people who always want to make everything just that little bit worse.

But I bet Skippy pulled in loads of votes. Skippy was in fact the punch line of the sketch and the rest of the tricks would have been meaningless without him at the end.

None of us know the real % or why who voted for what reason but there were loads of other reasons to vote for that act other than it supposedly being "two dogs"

Has it not actually occurred to anyone that perhaps a lot of people voted just because they found the act pleasing to watch and it being a nice little story? Perhaps some people sat and worked out the relative difficulty of each act and cast their vote that way but "hardest to do" doesn't equate to "most entertaining".

Personally I gave up voting on reality shows years ago because whilst I don't think votes are rigged I do think there is too much manipulation and bias to force public opinion one way or another. I think more people are catching on to this which is why they now tease people in with "free" votes.

You can all defend the woman as much as you want, someone on the show decided to keep the second dog a second in the final, people voted for one dog. That's why Ofcom will uphold the complaint.

I don't believe they can do anything but uphold the complaint, as the stand-in stunt dog was never once brought out or mentioned we all voted for just one dog doing the full act.

You didn't vote for the dog act at all, so your objection is rather hypothetical.

Once again you can't just say that everyone voted for the same reason and the same thing.

Why would they have been voting on a solo dog act when they already knew Jules had more dogs and it was her skill as a trainer, as well as how entertaining the act was, being rewarded, since only the human part of the act is capable of winning the prize?

There was one human and one only. That was what was being judged. The dogs, all of the dogs, are tools the human uses. I know that sounds cold since we love dogs, but that's the truth.

If people think Pugsley from a few years ago won that prize, they're deluding themselves. The check was made out to Ashleigh.

What a strange way you have of putting it. "Uphold the complaint". No. The validity of the complaint and it's proper application has to be proven. It's not "guilty by default" and something being upheld.

BTW; JayyK are you the same person as Old Endeavor? I see 5 posts as your history, all in line with O.E., and he appears to be gone now.

The correct phraseology regarding Ofcom is "in breach" of the broadcasting code or "not in breach".

If found to be in breach, then the broadcaster will face some kind of punishment, ranging from having to issue a public apology to a heavy fine, up to licence removal, but that only happens in exceptional circumstances, after repeated offences.

I honestly don't know which way Ofcom will rule on this one, but if found to be in breach, the punishment will be pretty mild, I reckon.

In this case you complaint is not upheld due to it being complete nonsense.

BGT is over and the only time I come on this hidden thread is to check the level of the denial still being posted by her apologists.

If all you have is wild speculation that two different posters are one and the same based on two people posting the same opinion and one of them not still waffling on and on it a thread about a show that ended weeks ago, then there is no hope of you understanding the hidden dog cover up con.

A fine for the broadcaster and they may order that refunds are made as taking money under false pretences is again the law.

And of course, the dog act will forever be rightfully marred by her compliance in the cover up.

When introduced of the RVP she will be seen as the act that had to work a con to get the prize which rightfully she should not have got.

Oh god not you again!!

This forum was so peaceful for the past couple of days but unfortunately you just had to ruin the mood again!!

This is old news, stop rambling on and on and on about the same damn thing for a change because your ridiculous moaning and ranting won't change a thing.

Just go back into your dark, gloomy cave and stop being a killjoy!!