I think some of you are being very naive and biased.

You say that some people are throwing her past back into her first all the time, yet, not only does the show throw it into our face, but also the press too. It is always in our face, and the most important point is that the decision made by the judges for her are not just because of her talent but also because of her past. I'm sure that if she didn't have that bad history against her, then her "attitude" or whatnot wouldn't have gotten her anyway in the show, and that her later screw-ups in bootcamp would definitely ensured that she wouldn't be in the final 12. You know it. Everyone knows it. You are free to pick out Daniel being a widow, or Amy Connolly, being the daughter of a single father whose wife died when Amy was still young. Always picking at these points and knowing for yourselves that they got as far as they did not only because of their potential but because of their past, yet when Rachel comes into the equation, noooo. You are all being harsh on her. Maybe you seem to be thinking more about her past than others perhaps?

I don't agree with people who constantly use her past as way of attacking her or disliking her. I mean already we've had a post here saying that at least he or she didn't take drugs or get pregnant at 13, when I don't think she asked for any of this, and other vitrolic comments. BUT I also disagree with the fact that some of her fans are acting like X Factor editors and producers, using her past as a way of saying "don't blame her, OK" or "don't dislike her, or you are just throwing it back in her face" or "she has come a long way" and other patronising comments, yet not being as nice towards other contestants.

Sadly because a good proportion of the british public like to put people with a less than white past, down.

How about give the poor girl a break for heavens sake ....... It was the same Sunday past ..... One of the top stories = [Rachel is suspected of having cannabis at boot camp]

They've really got it in for her haven't they ..... Shame on them, I say

Just a quick question, i'm genuinely interested.

If everything is in Rachel's past and we should just forget that - how come 3 of her children are still in care?

Surely if she had turned her life around and I don't mean just by chancing it on the x factor but genuinely turned her life around - why would social services feel there is still a good enough reason to keep the children out of her residential care?

The term ' turned their life around' is thrown around too loosely in my opinion.

Devon, equally people could say that some of the GBP like to virtualy cannonise those with less than a white past.....make them into virtual saints with endless suppositions, i;e" she's a great mum now", she's turning her life around etc,etc.
Well NONE of us KNOW that, why make out as if they are FACTS,equally I wouldn't say she's a terrible mum now because I DONT KNOW.
Reading lines like "another year, another battle", I think some feel a moral superiority, as if they are so special only they have the goodness to see any positives at the expense of all objectivity, and often at the expense of other contestents. It most defo works both ways.

Example, why use the cannibis story as" having it in for her"? Do you KNOW there's no truth in it, I don't. Why is it automatically a defensive stance.
I am objective 'cos again I don't know the facts for sure, so I haven't assumed it's true or false. If you do know for an absolute fact it didn't happen then fair do's.

Natalie, my understanding is that the children have been adopted.

The sarcasm about responses that differ to others is noted, as is reference to a poster's singing voice, rather rude and again a matter of OPINION, if someone does not like her vocals, why can you accept that rather that accusations of jealousy.?
Those that carp on about the same responses, please take heed... they are in response to the thread title.... not that hard to work out. If you don't like reading the same things/find a differing opinion so difficult to digest, it's probably better not to enter them I would have thought.

Oops double post.

I thought this was the case too, and I realised it was because that's what Dermot said - her first three kids have been taken into care. Nothing about subsequently being adopted. This gives the wrong impression in my view. One week I think it said she had five children in care.

The biggest shame about this is that her family and past had to be mentioned at all (which is the reason many of us hate these sob stories) - i'd rather she'd not mentioned anything at all about her situation when she applied, and tried to get to the finals on the merit of her singing ability only. Having such a big storyline which grabbed the tabloid attention meant she was always going to make the last 12, unless she swore at the judges!

Once these kind of situations are brought into the open, it's always going to divide opinions (which is what Cowell wants, to give us a 'story' to look for, rather than having 12 clean cut, quiet acts in the final)?

I don't particularly like her voice (though I can see why many do), she's a bit too karaoke for me, but then this applies to many this year.

A lot can be said about being signed by 19E/Sony or Syco/Sony, and I understand why it is not every singer's favourite option.

However, those who make it far enough on these shows without being signed keep their freedom but raise their profile. It is a win-win situation.
I was thinking of Micheal Johns as an example, who rejected offers from major labels to keep his creative freedom. He hasn't lost anything, but has gained a lot of opportunities.
For others, opportunities can be musical theatre, higher profile gigs etc..

In this situation, I can think of only one drawback, and this is that they need to find the courage to put themselves through the grueling process that these contests are.

Firstly, that is not necessarily so....that is what the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is for (to encourage people and ensure they put the past behind them).

Secondly she would be entitled to support in terms of assistance with childcare to encourage her back to work and...

Thirdly, have you ever heard of Child Tax Credits? Taking into the account the number of children she has, incorporate working hours up to around 15 and her personal living circumstances she will be entitled to quite a large amount each month.

THAT is how the system works. Unfair to the likes of me who has never bashed out kids on a whim, worked hard for pretty much sod all and never been in trouble with the law but THAT is how it is. The least someone like Rachel (and many others) can do is take what is offered and be greatful for the opportunities available. They may not have had much of a childhood but there is much out there to secure their futures.