No, because his act was a magic act. Her's was meant to be one dog doing tricks.
Nail on the head there. Deception, simply, which is why Ofcom acted as they have.
This is bunkum, people vote for the act they like the best the one that entertains them the most. The method of how they achieve what's on screen is an irrelevance. If you went to the cinema and you learnt a stunt double replaced the main actor for a stunt you wouldn't expect to get your money back. Likewise if you paid to see this act in a theatre you'd be laughed at if you asked for a refund after finding out the method.
Ofcom have made the wrong decision here and sets a dangerous president, you're going to get a situation where disclaimers are made for illusionists not actually being able to do magic.
Read the context, we are talking of an alleged trained single dog act which was described as such, not an illusionist, two entirely different concepts. A choice between the various acts on BGT is dependent on an honest description, this clearly was not the case.
If you went to the cinema and you learnt a stunt double replaced the main actor for a stunt you wouldn't expect to get your money back.
Very different things. Not only is the actor still doing all of the acting in the film, it's common knowledge that stunt doubles are used in films - they're even credited.
This was a case of "look what my dog can do" and using another dog. It's more comparable to somebody miming to a voice that isn't theirs.
Sums it up when even the commenters on the Daily Mail article think it's a ridiculous ruling. OFCOM have got this one wrong IMO and failed to appreciate that there is often a bit of trickery and misdirection in many variety acts.
They were pretending that one dog was doing the act, asking for votes for the trainer and a single named dog, and didn't admit that there was more than one dog involved. That's not misdirection for magic purposes, it's claiming that one dog can do the things that actually required two dogs to do them.
That isn't just deception in the act, it's deception in the voting process.
Ofcom were definitely right to adjudicate as they have done IMO.
It's pathetic. Surely the public were voting for the act that entertained them the most. They don't need to know the ins and outs of the performance.
Part of the enjoyment factor is that one man and his dog, as it were, could do all that.
:-(
A former member
People need to get a bloody grip, we KNOW she had three dogs. I always thought that was quick to get from point A to point B, How did anyone expect that....
People need to get a bloody grip, we KNOW she had three dogs. I always thought that was quick to get from point A to point B, How did anyone expect that....
