At least ITV is offering refunds to viewers who called in on the premium phone line to vote. Or they can donate the money they paid for the call to the Royal Variety charity.
Ofcom are going to look into BGT scam, after 1,150 complaints
8 of 9
I wonder who those 1,150 people were. Where do they live? What are their hobbies? Does anybody love them?
Originally Posted by Mass Corona:
“I feel sorry for the second placed act as they were conned out of a possible win.”
“I feel sorry for the second placed act as they were conned out of a possible win.”
No he wasn't.
Originally Posted by Super Frog:
“I wonder who those 1,150 people were. Where do they live? What are their hobbies? Does anybody love them?”
“I wonder who those 1,150 people were. Where do they live? What are their hobbies? Does anybody love them?”
The loony PC squad who have nothing better to do than to complain to Ofcrap about every little thing and ruin these shows for us!!
Originally Posted by Super Frog:
“I wonder who those 1,150 people were. Where do they live? What are their hobbies? Does anybody love them?”
“I wonder who those 1,150 people were. Where do they live? What are their hobbies? Does anybody love them?”
They're just decent people who like to see fair play. I would have been one of them if I hadn't found the complaints process so tedious and complicated.
Originally Posted by dragon_mutant1:
“The loony PC squad who have nothing better to do than to complain to Ofcrap about every little thing and ruin these shows for us!!”
“The loony PC squad who have nothing better to do than to complain to Ofcrap about every little thing and ruin these shows for us!!”
So you don't mind being misled?
Originally Posted by dellzincht:
“No he wasn't.”
“No he wasn't.”
He was in that through the undisclosed use of the second dog he is likely to have lost a lot of votes.
Originally Posted by anyonefortennis:
“At least ITV is offering refunds to viewers who called in on the premium phone line to vote. Or they can donate the money they paid for the call to the Royal Variety charity.”
“At least ITV is offering refunds to viewers who called in on the premium phone line to vote. Or they can donate the money they paid for the call to the Royal Variety charity.”
Good result. Though I would also have liked Jules and her dog/s to have been disqualified or at least dropped from the RVP.
Originally Posted by Irma Bunt:
“No, they voted for an act. Or are you suggesting that those who voted for the magician were scammed because he doesn't actually have real magical powers...?”
“No, they voted for an act. Or are you suggesting that those who voted for the magician were scammed because he doesn't actually have real magical powers...?”
A magician is expected to use tricks and illusions in his act. The dog act was supposed to showcase how well Matisse performed. An equivalent would have been that another look-alike magician came in and did his act for him.
Originally Posted by Sylvia:
“So you don't mind being misled?”
“So you don't mind being misled?”
I don't take these shows too seriously unlike most of the PC lowlives who just love to complain about every small thing, the only thing that bothers me about these shows is entertainment value, which is why the show was made in the first place (to entertain), hence why they're called "entertainment shows" so I couldn't care less if it was misleading or not, it's only a TV show.
Originally Posted by Irma Bunt:
“No, they voted for an act. Or are you suggesting that those who voted for the magician were scammed because he doesn't actually have real magical powers...?”
“No, they voted for an act. Or are you suggesting that those who voted for the magician were scammed because he doesn't actually have real magical powers...?”
Nobody thought he had magical powers - we all know that 'magic' acts are illusions and how credible they seem depends on the skill of the performer.
How insulting! Some of you are slagging of the people who objected to being conned and that has now been made official. Yet you still seem to make out that the problem is with them and that conning people is all OK. Try taking a good look at yourselves before making even bigger fools of yourselves.
It has been independently found that the audience were misled. Therefore they may not have voted for the act and as it was close run thing, that may have change the entire result. Still think that it's trivial matter or that you still don't care as long as the act that you like gets the prize not matter how dirty the tactics?
It has been independently found that the audience were misled. Therefore they may not have voted for the act and as it was close run thing, that may have change the entire result. Still think that it's trivial matter or that you still don't care as long as the act that you like gets the prize not matter how dirty the tactics?
Originally Posted by dellzincht:
“No he wasn't.”
“No he wasn't.”
What a frankly ridiculous and nonsense thing to post. This, if it were needed, shows the level of understanding and the level of support above all common sense for the dog act.
The first and second place were close and it has now been officially found that the audience were in fact conned. So some voters voted for the dog act based on that con and would not have done so had they known about it before voting. That may have made enough of a difference in the close first and second places.
So posting "No he wasn't" is just complete unsupported nonsense.
Originally Posted by anyonefortennis:
“At least ITV is offering refunds to viewers who called in on the premium phone line to vote. Or they can donate the money they paid for the call to the Royal Variety charity.”
“At least ITV is offering refunds to viewers who called in on the premium phone line to vote. Or they can donate the money they paid for the call to the Royal Variety charity.”
Regardless of whether someone paid for a vote or not, the ones conned should have a right to take their vote back free or paid for. Then lets have a re-cound and see who the real winner was.
Hope she is BOOed on the RVP as people just don't like cheaters.
Has it really taken this long?
If the audience were misled, its only right and proper they should have their money refunded.
Was this because of Chase walking the rope, or was there a THIRD dog?
If the audience were misled, its only right and proper they should have their money refunded.
Was this because of Chase walking the rope, or was there a THIRD dog?
Originally Posted by Mass Corona:
“What a frankly ridiculous and nonsense thing to post. This, if it were needed, shows the level of understanding and the level of support above all common sense for the dog act.
The first and second place were close and it has now been officially found that the audience were in fact conned. So some voters voted for the dog act based on that con and would not have done so had they known about it before voting. That may have made enough of a difference in the close first and second places.
So posting "No he wasn't" is just complete unsupported nonsense.”
“What a frankly ridiculous and nonsense thing to post. This, if it were needed, shows the level of understanding and the level of support above all common sense for the dog act.
The first and second place were close and it has now been officially found that the audience were in fact conned. So some voters voted for the dog act based on that con and would not have done so had they known about it before voting. That may have made enough of a difference in the close first and second places.
So posting "No he wasn't" is just complete unsupported nonsense.”
Hear Hear!
Originally Posted by Mass Corona:
“How insulting! Some of you are slagging of the people who objected to being conned and that has now been made official. Yet you still seem to make out that the problem is with them and that conning people is all OK. Try taking a good look at yourselves before making even bigger fools of yourselves.
It has been independently found that the audience were misled. Therefore they may not have voted for the act and as it was close run thing, that may have change the entire result. Still think that it's trivial matter or that you still don't care as long as the act that you like gets the prize not matter how dirty the tactics?”
“How insulting! Some of you are slagging of the people who objected to being conned and that has now been made official. Yet you still seem to make out that the problem is with them and that conning people is all OK. Try taking a good look at yourselves before making even bigger fools of yourselves.
It has been independently found that the audience were misled. Therefore they may not have voted for the act and as it was close run thing, that may have change the entire result. Still think that it's trivial matter or that you still don't care as long as the act that you like gets the prize not matter how dirty the tactics?”
Well said!
Originally Posted by dragon_mutant1:
“I don't take these shows too seriously unlike most of the PC lowlives who just love to complain about every small thing, the only thing that bothers me about these shows is entertainment value, which is why the show was made in the first place (to entertain), hence why they're called "entertainment shows" so I couldn't care less if it was misleading or not, it's only a TV show.”
“I don't take these shows too seriously unlike most of the PC lowlives who just love to complain about every small thing, the only thing that bothers me about these shows is entertainment value, which is why the show was made in the first place (to entertain), hence why they're called "entertainment shows" so I couldn't care less if it was misleading or not, it's only a TV show.”
So in your book someone who stands up for fair play and common decency is a lowlife?
Originally Posted by Sylvia:
“He was in that through the undisclosed use of the second dog he is likely to have lost a lot of votes.”
“He was in that through the undisclosed use of the second dog he is likely to have lost a lot of votes.”
Why do you just assume that people who originally voted for Jules and Matisse would have voted for Jamie Raven instead? You don't know that.
And to the person who said they hope she gets booed at the RVP, grow up. She had nothing to do with the deception, it was the production team that decided on the name of the act.
Do you honestly think an error of judgement on ITV's part warrants potentially ruining someone's career?
Some people really need to put things into perspective before posting here, this is ridiculous.
Originally Posted by Sylvia:
“Good result. Though I would also have liked Jules and her dog/s to have been disqualified or at least dropped from the RVP.”
“Good result. Though I would also have liked Jules and her dog/s to have been disqualified or at least dropped from the RVP.”
Do you always overreact this much?
Many years from now, there will be one of those "TV Moments from the 1#s" type shows, where second rate celebs like Vernon Kay give their thoughts on bygone TV programmes, and this incident will be replayed to some serious mickey-taking and sniggering.
"Remember that one where there was....wasn't it another dog who walked the tightrope?"
"Oh yeah, that caused some right upset that did, people actually rang in and demanded their 50p back and everything!"
"Wasn't the same dog was it?"
"Stunt dog. Naughty!"
"Remember that one where there was....wasn't it another dog who walked the tightrope?"
"Oh yeah, that caused some right upset that did, people actually rang in and demanded their 50p back and everything!"
"Wasn't the same dog was it?"
"Stunt dog. Naughty!"
Originally Posted by Mass Corona:
“How insulting! Some of you are slagging of the people who objected to being conned and that has now been made official. Yet you still seem to make out that the problem is with them and that conning people is all OK. Try taking a good look at yourselves before making even bigger fools of yourselves.
It has been independently found that the audience were misled. Therefore they may not have voted for the act and as it was close run thing, that may have change the entire result. Still think that it's trivial matter or that you still don't care as long as the act that you like gets the prize not matter how dirty the tactics?”
“How insulting! Some of you are slagging of the people who objected to being conned and that has now been made official. Yet you still seem to make out that the problem is with them and that conning people is all OK. Try taking a good look at yourselves before making even bigger fools of yourselves.
It has been independently found that the audience were misled. Therefore they may not have voted for the act and as it was close run thing, that may have change the entire result. Still think that it's trivial matter or that you still don't care as long as the act that you like gets the prize not matter how dirty the tactics?”
It was actually a fair verdict from Ofcom - they recognised that there was no prior intention to mislead the audience but that things should have been made clearer in respect of the involvement of a second dog. ITV's remedy of refunds or donations for those who paid to vote was reasonable though.
I hope that this case will mean that it's much less likely that this kind of incident will occur again.
Originally Posted by Mass Corona:
“Regardless of whether someone paid for a vote or not, the ones conned should have a right to take their vote back free or paid for. Then lets have a re-cound and see who the real winner was.
Hope she is BOOed on the RVP as people just don't like cheaters.”
“Regardless of whether someone paid for a vote or not, the ones conned should have a right to take their vote back free or paid for. Then lets have a re-cound and see who the real winner was.
Hope she is BOOed on the RVP as people just don't like cheaters.”
Conned infers there was prior intent to mislead. Ofcom has said there was no prior intent to mislead but the situation should have been made clear.
The winning act did not cheat, the report did not lay the blame at her door, Although they said the name of the act was misleading it was the programme producers who named the act not her (she wanted a more inclusive name for all her animals). The fault lies squarely with the programme producers who were guilty of carelessness not malice.
So it should have been made clearer even if there was a close up shot of the 2nd dog's collar with "Chase" on it?
Dear God. How clear should it have been? AFAIK Chase had already been on view in the round before (the semi)
Dear God. How clear should it have been? AFAIK Chase had already been on view in the round before (the semi)
8 of 9
