[Yudster]

We would not accept that a television programme which involved physical risk (e.g. Beat The Star, Gladiators etc) took place without some kind of medical assessment of the contestants and a producers' right of veto if there was a risk to their health.

But I WOULD. I really believe that people should be allowed to experience the real consequences of their stupidity. Of course this would never happen, but another alternative is to not make these appalling programmes in the first place. That would be my favourite.

I'm wondering if she just had a hissy fit because she didn't win, simple as that.

Actually Zoot the more I think about it the more (depressingly) likely this becomes. This BGT really has been an end of the pier type freak show, what with Susan Boyle living her own soap opera in the spotlight, and a typical English "lets laugh at the fat blokes" type act getting to the final. We aren't really interested in the talent which might be on show, just the human misery and humiliation we can glimpse on the way.

[Boboff]

She's ugly, nuts, sings one song, aggressive and hairy.

I really couldn't give a flying *.

[Yudster]

She's not even a good singer. If she didn't look so weird no one would have given her a second thought for her voice.

[Ed Pummelon]

But I WOULD. I really believe that people should be allowed to experience the real consequences of their stupidity. Of course this would never happen, but another alternative is to not make these appalling programmes in the first place. That would be my favourite.

Meaning if someone with a known heart condition was allowed to take part in Gladiators and then died of a heart attack while it was being made, it would be OK for the producers to just turn round and say "well, we did warn him". I'm afraid I don't agree, I'm the guy who'd be trying to divert the lemmings away from the edge of the cliff. However I do agree that it would be far better if these programmes simply didn't get made, even if that is just a pipe dream.

[MK Chris]

But what Yudster is saying (I think) is that if you have a serious heart condition, you should know better than to apply for it in the first place.

I enjoyed Gladiators, but I wish they didn't make these shite "talent" shows.

[Ed Pummelon]

But what Yudster is saying (I think) is that if you have a serious heart condition, you should know better than to apply for it in the first place.

I enjoyed Gladiators, but I wish they didn't make these shite "talent" shows.

I know that's what Yudster is saying. My point is, if you don't know better, it is up to the producers to say we know there is a real risk of this person dying on our show and we're not prepared to accept that. Not, as in the BGT case, there's a real risk of causing further damage to this person's mental health (a risk which was clearly there, if it was so obvious to everyone that she had difficulties), but that would take away our lucrative story line so we're going to turn a blind eye.

[Yudster]

I still don't agree. If people are stupid enough to put THEMSELVES at risk its no-one's responsibility but their own.

[Zoot]

I just watched the BGT award bit where they announced the winner, and Yuddy was right, Susan Boyles behaviour was disgusting. Even from there you can see she was a Dec short of a comic duo.

[Yudster]

I did wonder if she was drunk. Or even sedated. But I shouldn't think she was either.

[Ed Pummelon]

I still don't agree. If people are stupid enough to put THEMSELVES at risk its no-one's responsibility but their own.

But by that logic if you see an adult stepping out in front of a bus because they're on their phone or listening to music, you wouldn't grab them to stop them. I know it's a different situation but it's the same principle, and there is no way I could just stand and watch them do that, or be happy to watch someone else let them do that.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Console]

If people are stupid enough to put THEMSELVES at risk its no-one's responsibility but their own.

I agree with you on this, but to a point; if people are doing stupid things then it's generally better for them to learn from their mistakes - primarily because we learn better from mistakes than we do from being told something. However, if their mistake would cause them significant physical or mental harm then I would consider it the moral responsibility of anyone with the knowledge of the problem and the ability to resolve it to do so - there are some things that you just shouldn't let people learn through mistakes.

Now, I don't really know much about this situation in particular (other than what I've read here) to know whether or not people around this woman would have known enough to try to stop her, or even whether they tried to convince her to not do it and failed, but I do not think that the show should be held responsible for what happened - they're not experts on mental health, they may have considered the woman odd but they're not qualified to make decisions like that for some stranger. Infact, if they have disallowed her access purely for being 'odd' then they could be liable to a lawsuit for discrimination.

[Yudster]

I still don't agree. If people are stupid enough to put THEMSELVES at risk its no-one's responsibility but their own.

But by that logic if you see an adult stepping out in front of a bus because they're on their phone or listening to music, you wouldn't grab them to stop them. I know it's a different situation but it's the same principle, and there is no way I could just stand and watch them do that, or be happy to watch someone else let them do that.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Somebody making a careless and dangerous mistake is a completely different situation than somebody making a carefully considered and deliberate - albeit wrong - decision.

[Boboff]

A suicide bomber scenario then?

[MK Chris]

Interesting comment in response to the Guardian's article by 'tiredgiraffe'.

[Ed Pummelon]

Let's not forget in all of this, that BGT is one of the most manipulative and cynical shows this country has produced, and that's saying something. Piers Morgan gives radio interviews saying the press should "back off" Susan Boyle, when he and his cohorts have done nothing but court the publicity from the word go. The same Piers Morgan describes the incident with the girl breaking down and crying as "we are not going to have this girl crucified on stage like this". A spokeswoman says "the well-being of our contestants is our number one priority". Of course it is, not the 15.4 million viewers you got that night, perish the thought.

And in addition, a woman with mental health problems tries to quit the show because she has become so "distraught" that she has to be moved to a "safe house" for her own "well-being", and is subsequently assessed under the Mental Health Act.

And yet at no time in any of this, would it have been appropriate for the people running the show to step in and say, "you know what, this has gone too far"? Please.

[Console]

And yet at no time in any of this, would it have been appropriate for the people running the show to step in and say, "you know what, this has gone too far"? Please.

People will continue to watch though, and not in-spite of things like this, but actually because of things like this - the show is just pandering to it's audience.

[Ed Pummelon]

Interesting comment in response to the Guardian's article by 'tiredgiraffe'.

He / she says the tabloids ought to be ashamed, and so they should for their part in all this. However, the story was written and fed to them by TalkbackThames, they are responsible for the publicity as much as the newspapers.

And yet at no time in any of this, would it have been appropriate for the people running the show to step in and say, "you know what, this has gone too far"? Please.

People will continue to watch though, and not in-spite of things like this, but actually because of things like this - the show is just pandering to it's audience.

Absolutely, the same way as tabloid newspapers only exist because people want to read them. That doesn't give producers or papers the moral high ground though, and it doesn't absolve them of responsibility when things go wrong.

[ladbroke]

Susan Boyle is a woman who is well enough to live on her own, and is of a sound enough mind to make adult, considered decisions (i.e. to audition for the show). She could be described as eccentric, and odd, but she is an 'ordinary' member of society in every other respect. I really hate the idea, which is becoming more and more common, that we wrap people like this up in cotton wool. She is an adult. Were she 14 years old then there should be a much more thorough duty of care, and I'm sure minors are given much greater supervision and observation. She comes across as not a very nice person, and actually has a false sense of her ability (fuelled some what by the media), but she was free to quit at any time. Maybe after the first couple of weeks she realsied that she stood to make enormous amounts of money, so stayed.

Shaheen should've won, a nice lad, with a natural, fantastic voice. He was born to sing in my opinion.

[Ed Pummelon]

Susan Boyle is a woman who is well enough to live on her own, and is of a sound enough mind to make adult, considered decisions (i.e. to audition for the show). She could be described as eccentric, and odd, but she is an 'ordinary' member of society in every other respect. I really hate the idea, which is becoming more and more common, that we wrap people like this up in cotton wool. She is an adult. Were she 14 years old then there should be a much more thorough duty of care, and I'm sure minors are given much greater supervision and observation. She comes across as not a very nice person, and actually has a false sense of her ability (fuelled some what by the media), but she was free to quit at any time. Maybe after the first couple of weeks she realsied that she stood to make enormous amounts of money, so stayed.

Shaheen should've won, a nice lad, with a natural, fantastic voice. He was born to sing in my opinion.

And this therefore gives the makers of the show the right to manipulate her image, create a storyline around her and expose her to the world's media without any efffective support up to and beyond the point where she ends up needing to be assessed under the Mental Health Act does it? The fact someone enters a show willingly, does not absolve all those involved in that show from any responsibility to ensure the well being of the people they are using.

You're right, she was free to quit at any time. In fact the week before the final that's exactly what she said she wanted to do. So she was whisked off to a "safe house", had a chat with the nice Piers Morgan who had suddenly become her self-appointed moral guardian (and who of course wasn't concerned in the slightest that there might be a backlash against the show starting), and what do you know, suddenly she's going to carry on.

I'm not saying that Susan Boyle shouldn't take responsibility for her actions, but that does not mean for one moment that TalkbackThames don't need to take responsibility for theirs.

[ladbroke]

Maybe I'm cold, but I think they have no responsibility towards her. She entered the programme, she came second, and it's a reciprocal arragement; she'll make some cash, they get their viewing figures. You essentially prostitute yourself by going on the show, sometimes it works favourably sometimes it doesn't.

[chrysostom]

Seems a case of Su-bo believing the hype surrounding her, and getting too confident. I'm so glad diversity won, as singing imo shouldn't take center stage on BGT, even though it's a talent : there are so many show dedicated to it.

Moral of the story?

Public Enemy : Don't believe the Hype

[Munki Bhoy]

Annoying me today - being at work when it's not only bloody warm (seems like a waste of a good day when you're stuck in the office) but I'm also rather tired because some genius at the BBC put a Tourettes documentary on after midnight last night. Bastards, show that kind of entertainment earlier!

Especially if your signer for the deaf is going to sign out even the ticks. That's comedy gold.

[Ed Pummelon]

Maybe I'm cold, but I think they have no responsibility towards her. She entered the programme, she came second, and it's a reciprocal arragement; she'll make some cash, they get their viewing figures. You essentially prostitute yourself by going on the show, sometimes it works favourably sometimes it doesn't.

If it's nothing to do with the execs, why was Shahbaz "enabled" to leave Big Brother 7 after talking about suicide? Why was Emily evicted after using the "N" word to describe a fellow housemate. Surely those things have nothing to do with the producers either?

Taking your approach, where does it end? Someone with obvious mental health problems decides before the semi-finals that they can't take the pressure and hangs herself in her dressing room - "nope, nothing to do with us." Someone goes postal and machine guns half the backstage crew - "well, they looked a bit odd but we didn't like to say anything." Sound far fetched? The TV execs obviously share your belief in non-accountability, so let's wait and see.

[Ed Pummelon]

Actually, its seems that the question has finally been answered by the illustrious Mr. Morgan himself. According to the BBC he received a phone call from Boyle on Sunday saying she hadn't been sleeping or eating properly, but he "insisted that the programme's producers supported all the contestants, and that they 'couldn't have done any more for her'."

Well that's OK then.

[SAV1OUR]

Annoying me today - being at work when it's not only bloody warm (seems like a waste of a good day when you're stuck in the office) but I'm also rather tired because some genius at the BBC put a Tourettes documentary on after midnight last night. Bastards, show that kind of entertainment earlier!

Especially if your signer for the deaf is going to sign out even the ticks. That's comedy gold.

I saw a bit of that programme while trying very hard to avoid BGT and I felt bad, I was trying not to laugh when he was queuing to buy clothes and he swore at the woman in front of him and couldn't help it, I liked his accurate analogy of Tourettes too, it's like really needing to sneeze (which i'm gonna be doing lots of as it's hayfever month) you have to try and suppress it.