|
||||||||
Harry Hill / Eoghan |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 334
|
Harry Hill / Eoghan
Can't wait to see Harry Hill's show this Saturday. I wonder what he will make of Eoghan's Blubbing. Should be funny to watch and if Eoghan ever does make it big (which I doubt) I'm sure that Eoghan will look back on that moment the same way Boyzone look back on their dancing introduction to TV.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sidcup
Posts: 1,074
|
Quote:
Can't wait to see Harry Hill's show this Saturday. I wonder what he will make of Eoghan's Blubbing. Should be funny to watch and if Eoghan ever does make it big (which I doubt) I'm sure that Eoghan will look back on that moment the same way Boyzone look back on their dancing introduction to TV.
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
|
Harry Hill's great, but I do find it concerning that people don't think twice about the slamming of a 16 year old boy in the media, or a 17yr old girl for that matter, just because they're on TV. :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,894
|
Quote:
Harry Hill's great, but I do find it concerning that people don't think twice about the slamming of a 16 year old boy in the media, or a 17yr old girl for that matter, just because they're on TV. :/
Or young contestants who go on these shows probably need to bear in mind they're opening themselves up to a world of scrutiny by applying. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
|
Quote:
Maybe they should make the minimum age 18 again? Unless, we propose that only contestants of a certain age can be gently ridiculed.
Or young contestants who go on these shows probably need to bear in mind they're opening themselves up to a world of scrutiny by applying. I know that there are many cruel people who'll do that on the internet, that's a given, but I'd hope that people on TV and in the media might think twice about such a thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: In an Audi Quatro.
Posts: 7,971
|
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the mass bitching that goes on in the media or this forum for ANY of the contestants and wish people didn't become so bolshy when sniping at public figures - but there's just something so wrong in slagging off school kids.
I know that there are many cruel people who'll do that on the internet, that's a given, but I'd hope that people on TV and in the media might think twice about such a thing. Harry is brilliant - he doesn't have to ridicule Egg - he does that all by himself! And yes, I am a nasty sod!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,894
|
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the mass bitching that goes on in the media or this forum for ANY of the contestants and wish people didn't become so bolshy when sniping at public figures - but there's just something so wrong in slagging off school kids (and I don't mean just criticising the singing, I mean laying into them for other stuff).
I know that there are many cruel people who'll do that on the internet, that's a given, but I'd hope that people on TV and in the media might think twice about such a thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: In an Audi Quatro.
Posts: 7,971
|
Quote:
The problem is, it's a competition and anyone who enters surely needs to be on a level playing field? I don't see why one could be treated differently from the other and if Eoghan gets upset about this now, how would he cope if he continued to remain in the public eye. On the contrary, I think its best that everyone experiences what its like to be open to criticism now because it'll only be a bigger shock if it starts further down the line.
If you want to put your head in the oven you have to be prepared to get burned. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
|
Quote:
I'm pretty sure they're savvy enough to know what they're getting into.
I think there are people much older who could be very negatively affected by these things, but it's just startlingly bad that we're targeting people who haven't come of age and criticising them on looks and the like! I think that's pretty bloody shameful. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,894
|
Quote:
I think that's rather optimistic. I know there are lots of adolescents that are really mature for their age, but there are still many that aren't and I'm not so sure that seeming mature and being mature are anything like the same at that age.
I think there are people much older who could be very negatively affected by these things, but it's just startlingly bad that we're targeting people who haven't come of age and criticising them on looks and the like! I think that's pretty bloody shameful. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
|
Quote:
The problem is, it's a competition and anyone who enters surely needs to be on a level playing field? I don't see why one could be treated differently from the other and if Eoghan gets upset about this now, how would he cope if he continued to remain in the public eye. On the contrary, I think its best that everyone experiences what its like to be open to criticism now because it'll only be a bigger shock if it starts further down the line.
In the singing competition part it's only right that his signing and voting should be judged in the same way, but the 'fair playing field' is not justified imo in being extended to the media slagging off what many would consider to be children - possibly not me, but they are at least not of age in terms of the law, they are still dependants. Quote:
If you want to put your head in the oven you have to be prepared to get burned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
|
Quote:
If they haven't 'come of age', then arguably they shouldn't be competing for a £1million recording contract on the highest rated UK TV show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,894
|
Quote:
Why? Protecting dependants does not mean that they can't perform without being harmed, and performing does not provide a rational foundation for people in the media to slag people off based on things other than performance.
I just don't buy that because he's 16, he should be immune from what every other person in the public eye goes through. If it's a serious issue, then I really do think they need to bring the age range back up to 18. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: In an Audi Quatro.
Posts: 7,971
|
Quote:
If they haven't 'come of age', then arguably they shouldn't be competing for a £1million recording contract on the highest rated UK TV show.
![]() I respect what the other poster is saying but we are talking about stage school type kids here - a different breed to your run of the mill schoolkid (yes, a lot of them are savvy, a lot of them aren't). I'm not completely heartless but I know from experience that a lot of these kids have been round the block a bit, are tougher than you think and know how to turn on the waterworks at the drop of a hat! |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 19,941
|
Harry Hill hasn't said anything untoward.
He only highlighted how disingenuous Eoghan is with his 'vote for me' face. The proof was there 2 weeks ago when he almost forgot to do it because he was too busy being tearful at the time. Eoghan is probably subjected to worse scrutiny in the school playground as we all know how evil kids are!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,656
|
I've never found Harry Hill funny, he just seems to come across as incredibly immature to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: In an Audi Quatro.
Posts: 7,971
|
Quote:
Harry Hill hasn't said anything untoward.
He only highlighted how disingenuous Eoghan is with his 'vote for me' face. The proof was there 2 weeks ago when he almost forgot to do it because he was too busy being tearful at the time. Eoghan is probably subjected to worse scrutiny in the school playground as we all know how evil kids are!!! ![]() Very good point. To be honest, I have far more sympathy for auditioneees who are quite obviously mentally ill but become exploited in the name of good tv! |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,701
|
Quote:
Harry Hill hasn't said anything untoward.
He only highlighted how disingenuous Eoghan is with his 'vote for me' face. The proof was there 2 weeks ago when he almost forgot to do it because he was too busy being tearful at the time. Eoghan is probably subjected to worse scrutiny in the school playground as we all know how evil kids are!!! ETA: probably doesn't help that he looks about 12. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
|
Quote:
But you can't pick and choose what aspects of fame you want, no matter how old you are. I agree that being abusive is slightly underhand, no matter what age the contestant but I don't think Harry Hill has done anything particularly nasty or damaging.
I just don't buy that because he's 16, he should be immune from what every other person in the public eye goes through. If it's a serious issue, then I really do think they need to bring the age range back up to 18. Fame has negative consequences that can't be avoided (because there's this perverse idea that it's ok to be bastards and judgemental about anyone in the public eye), but this does not mean that there shouldn't be standards on TV to prevent targeting young people (ignoring Love's fantasy world where all kids that age are smart and don't need protection - sounds like something from Skins). There is no logical necessity that means that kids appearing on TV and performing need be open to malicious targeting from the media. Harry's 'look at his stupid face' type humour is one thing, but then you get people like Charlie Brooker (who is imo a genius), fully laying into a teenage boy based on his looks. I don't care if they're talking about Eoghan and Diana's performing on the show, the entire point of the show is to critique that and sell it anyway, but taking it more personally than that is very poor indeed. I have a history on these boards of rarely coming down on the sides of arguments that involve what I see as 'wrapping kids in cotton wool' and patronising them, but when it comes to saying 'well sod em, the media getting their jollies out of bullying school kids is ok', I just can't subscribe to that or think that it's ok and I think it's a shame that you might think it's acceptable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,894
|
Quote:
You're making it sound as if it's unfair to expect people not to lay into school kids and to expect certain standards in the media, but I really don't think that's unfair at all, in fact I really don't think that the 'if they're on TV, they're fair game' holds water in the slightest.
Fame has negative consequences that can't be avoided (because there's this perverse idea that it's ok to be bastards and judgemental about anyone in the public eye), but this does not mean that there shouldn't be standards on TV to prevent targeting young people (ignoring Love's fantasy world where all kids that age are smart and don't need protection - sounds like something from Skins). There is no logical necessity that means that kids appearing on TV and performing need be open to malicious targeting from the media. Harry's 'look at his stupid face' type humour is one thing, but then you get people like Charlie Brooker (who is imo a genius), fully laying into a teenage boy based on his looks. I don't care if they're talking about Eoghan and Diana's performing on the show, the entire point of the show is to critique that and sell it anyway, but taking it more personally than that is very poor indeed. I have a history on these boards of rarely coming down on the sides of arguments that involve what I see as 'wrapping kids in cotton wool' and patronising them, but when it comes to saying 'well sod em, the media getting their jollies out of bullying school kids is ok', I just can't subscribe to that or think that it's ok and I think it's a shame that you might think it's acceptable. Do you seriously propose we legislate against broadcasters not being able to say anything about anyone under 18? |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
|
Quote:
Well I think I've made myself fairly clear already on this point - if you want to put yourself in the public eye then you should be prepared to handle every aspect, good or bad, and at 16 you should be able to make an informed decision about that.
Quote:
Do you seriously propose we legislate against broadcasters not being able to say anything about anyone under 18?
No, I've very specifically being talking about the superficial kinds of insult that presumably would already be against BBC guidelines. That is nothing like not allowing them to say anything, it is saying that there should be reticence about targeting kids like that - you're basically allowing bullying from a distance.If it's a censorship issue for you, then fair enough and you'd probably even get me to agree, but if you think it's the right thing to do to take the piss out of some boy for how he looks, just because we wanted to be a singer ... I don't get it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,894
|
Quote:
It's a silly point though, as the whole idea of being a dependant and not legally an adult is that you're judged not to be mature enough to make the really big decisions for yourself, and the idea that all kids at that age are mature enough to know what they're getting into is ridiculous.
No, I've very specifically being talking about the superficial kinds of insult that presumably would already be against BBC guidelines. That is nothing like not allowing them to say anything, it is saying that there should be reticence about targeting kids like that - you're basically allowing bullying from a distance. If it's a censorship issue for you, then fair enough and you'd probably even get me to agree, but if you think it's the right thing to do to take the piss out of some boy for how he looks, just because we wanted to be a singer ... I don't get it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 332
|
Quote:
Look we're never going to agree, clearly. But I've managed to be reasonable to you so need to say my point is 'silly' just because you don't agree.
I'm kidding really, but maybe the principle is the same as your earlier post? |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Herts
Posts: 4,925
|
Quote:
But I've managed to be reasonable to you so need to say my point is 'silly' just because you don't agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 27,629
|
Quote:
Harry Hill's great, but I do find it concerning that people don't think twice about the slamming of a 16 year old boy in the media, or a 17yr old girl for that matter, just because they're on TV. :/
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:27.


