First winner of Red or Black may not receive his million

[Niamh.]

The first millionaire from Simons new game show Red or Black Nathan Hageman is in danger of not receiving his winnings.......

http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/874583-red-or-black-winner-was-jailed-for-beating-up-ex-girlfriend


Should he or shouldn't he?

[arista]

The first millionaire from Simons new game show Red or Black Nathan Hageman is in danger of not receiving his winnings.......

http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/874583-red-or-black-winner-was-jailed-for-beating-up-ex-girlfriend


Should he or shouldn't he?



Yes he did his time.


He is a Legal Player

[ILoveTRW]

give it to the victims

[Niamh.]

Yes he did his time.


He is a Legal Player

I thought so too, I actually didn't think they'd be allowed to take the winnings from him but they must be.

[Pyramid*]

Mmmm...... given that the show were aware of his criminal background, they still allowed him to participate: regardless.

I've no time for anyone who assaults or physcially harm another human being in such circumstances: male or female - but if the show knew before hand and allowed him to take part: it's no use them trying to take the moral high ground now.

He's entitled as far as I'm concerned. It might seem unfair - and from the victim's perspective, I understand the grievance feeling: I understand it all too well, but the show's people knew about it - and let him take part.

[arista]

give it to the victims


No as he did a prison term


So thats done with.

[arista]

Mmmm...... given that the show were aware of his criminal background, they still allowed him to participate: regardless.

I've no time for anyone who assaults or physcially harm another human being in such circumstances: male or female - but if the show knew before hand and allowed him to take part: it's no use them trying to take the moral high ground now.

He's entitled as far as I'm concerned. It might seem unfair - and from the victim's perspective, I understand the grievance feeling: I understand it all too well, but the show's people knew about it - and let him take part.



No they were not aware
this is the press dug it up.
He never told them.

[Niamh.]

No they were not aware
this is the press dug it up.

No, it says they were aware but that he'd told them it was a man that he'd assaulted not a woman

[Tom4784]

He's done his time and there hasn't been any offences since, let him have his money. If we continue to punish people who have repayed their debt then we might as well give life to everyone who's ever done wrong.

[arista]

No, it says they were aware but that he'd told them it was a man that he'd assaulted not a woman


Yes so they did not have the Truth.

[joeysteele]

I will never condone his actions as to the crime committed but of course he should have the winnings.
If he won the lottery he would get that.

I am sure though they will have something in very small print that says something different to that.
Something that goes on the lines of, if the company feels it has been misled as to applicants and contestants then they reserve some right to not honour payments.

[Niamh.]

I will never condone his actions as to the crime committed but of course he should have the winnings.
If he won the lottery he would get that.

I am sure though they will have something in very small print that says something different to that.
Something that goes on the lines of, if the company feels it has been misled as to applicants and contestants then they reserve some right to not honour payments.

Yeah, they must do otherwise they wouldn't be discussing it. Still though, I think he'd have a pretty good chance legally of getting it if they decided not to give it to him and he challenged it.

[Pyramid*]

No they were not aware
this is the press dug it up.
He never told them.



ITV had initially supported Hageman following news of his conviction, saying they were aware of his criminal past.


Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/874583-red-or-black-winner-was-jailed-for-beating-up-ex-girlfriend#ixzz1XAa4XaSC



No, it says they were aware but that he'd told them it was a man that he'd assaulted not a woman

Correct, they state they were aware.

If they were bothered at all by any conviction: they would have felt the need to check it out ..... they knew about it, didn't feel they needed / wanted / cared to check it out.... so they should pay up the readies.

[Pyramid*]

Yes so they did not have the Truth.


Neither were they bothered to check out what they were 'aware of'.

That's their problem...not his.

[joeysteele]

Yeah, they must do otherwise they wouldn't be discussing it. Still though, I think he'd have a pretty good chance legally of getting it if they decided not to give it to him and he challenged it.

Not the best start for Simon's new show really though.

[Niamh.]

Not the best start for Simon's new show really though.

Or is it............? Everytime some "scandal" comes out about one of his shows I always suspect a fix, I'm getting very cynical!

[Pyramid*]

Or is it............? Everytime some "scandal" comes out about one of his shows I always suspect a fix, I'm getting very cynical!


Worked a treat for WWTBAM with Judith Keppel, related to royalty, the million pound question being one on Royal Family history IIRC?

;)

I'm with you on the cynical ploy front...

[Maia]

They should give the money to Angel instead.

[joeysteele]

Or is it............? Everytime some "scandal" comes out about one of his shows I always suspect a fix, I'm getting very cynical!

Contoversial headlines, you are likely right. He always says in response to positive or negative headlines that 'all' publicity is good publicity, if people are talking about you, you are noticed.

[arista]

They should give the money to Angel instead.


No he played that game and Won.

[Niamh.]

Worked a treat for WWTBAM with Judith Keppel, related to royalty, the million pound question being one on Royal Family history IIRC?

;)

I'm with you on the cynical ploy front...

Yep, and there always seems to be something with his shows in particular

Contoversial headlines, you are likely right. He always says in response to positive or negative headlines that 'all' publicity is good publicity, if people are talking about you, you are noticed.

Yeah, in fact, bad publicity probably gets more attention and interest

[arista]

Neither were they bothered to check out what they were 'aware of'.

That's their problem...not his.


Yes its a Error on there part.


He Singed a SyCo contract.

So that the Legal point.

[MTVN]

Yeah I think he should get the money, he's served his time for his offence and they obviously had no problem with him appearing despite his criminal record so it's only fair that he now gets to keep his winnings

[Pyramid*]

No he played that game and Won.

Precisely.

They knew about his background, didn't care enough to check it out and seek clarification on it: so it wasn't important enough to the show at the point of allowing him to become a contestant.

The man won fair and square. Now on the back of all this publicity: if he wanted to move on with his life having done his jail time: the show have put paid to that................................... what price £1m in winnings. Could it be Karma coming round and all that!! ;)

[arista]

Yes Wright Stuff Ch5 spent 20mins on it


If its on Every News
thats big PR

[Pyramid*]

Yes its a Error on there part.


He Singed a SyCo contract.

So that the Legal point.


Looks like the show has played this guy: rather than him playing on their show......

Such publicity for him is possibly going to have a very serious impact on his next few years - could destroy the guy for all we know (mentally, emotionally etc).

[Niamh.]

Yeah I think he should get the money, he's served his time for his offence and they obviously had no problem with him appearing despite his criminal record so it's only fair that he now gets to keep his winnings

Also, if they didn't give him the money they're basically saying that it's ok for him to assault a man but not a woman. I mean, I know it's probably worse that it was a woman as he could do more damage but you're either making a stand against violence or you're not.

[Pyramid*]

Also, if they didn't give him the money they're basically saying that it's ok for him to assault a man but not a woman. I mean, I know it's probably worse that it was a woman as he could do more damage but you're either making a stand against violence or you're not.

yep spot on.

I wonder what the ever growing amount of MEN who suffer daily from domestic abuse etc would have to say about that.

They haven't really thought all this 'publicity' thing through very well: geezo!!

[GiRTh]

I dont see how they can deny him the money. He went thru the selection process just like everyone else. If the producers decided to ignore his criminal past or not dig deep enough to find it then they have to abide by that.

[MTVN]

Also, if they didn't give him the money they're basically saying that it's ok for him to assault a man but not a woman. I mean, I know it's probably worse that it was a woman as he could do more damage but you're either making a stand against violence or you're not.

Yeah that's a good point as well, you can't really say it's fine for him to compete if he assaults a man but not a woman, assault is assault and it's not really any good to try and make out that the gender of the victim makes it a lot more acceptable/unacceptable

[arista]

Wright Stuff
said he could give £100,000 of his cash to a charity that deals
with woman attacked by men.



Double PR for SyCo and him.

[Niamh.]

Wright Stuff
said he could give £100,000 of his cash to a charity that deals
with woman attacked by men.



Double PR for SyCo and him.

Oh God, that actually makes it sound even more like a publicity stunt :rolleyes:

[arista]

Oh God, that actually makes it sound even more like a publicity stunt :rolleyes:





Yes Mega Clever
if that happens.

[Livia]

There was a case of a rapist winning cash on a game show, his victim sued him and was awarded a part of his prize. She couldn’t claim compensation at the time because he had no money. If he's allowed to keep the £1m, I reckon his victim will be taking legal advice.

[Vicky.]

That story makes it sound like its fine to beat up a man, but not a woman :bored:

[Jords]

I dont see how they have the power to do that?

Hes done his time, and seems like the guy is moving on from his dark past.

[Marc]

Surely that shouldn't stop him winning, he did his time.

[Ramsay]

He served time
Give him the money

[Doogle]

If I were him I'd be most pissed off.

[Tom]

He's had his punishment for his crime and he won it fair and square. It just sounds like ITV don't want to pay up. If ITV dont want to give prize money to such people then they shouldn't let them on the show

Wouldn't surprise me if he was planted to generate headlines, you know what Simon Cowell is like

[Zippy]

they should be more thorough with their checks beforehand if its such a concern. To start taking back prize money AFTER the facts just looks very dodgy and suspicious to me. And mean.

and I don't see how hitting a woman is so much worse than hitting a man. I didnt know the law held women up as being less hittable. Nobody should be hit, period.

[Zippy]

well he seems to be getting to keep it now.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ex-prisoner-keep-gameshow-prize-202023749.html

[Shaun]

It's quite shocking the lengths Cowell will go to to gain notoriety and media coverage.

And to think that idiot crowd cheered this guy on and booed Angel :crazy: morons.

[InOne]

Guess this proves there's no Karma

[Pyramid*]

the show's execs admit they cocked up.

Seriously: how do these people get these jobs - surely this would be a basic consideration. Wonder what they actually pay their lawyers for - clearly it wasn't just the execs at that screwed up.

Unless...of course, it was all a ploy in the first instance. though: having your name and photos splashed all over the papers/tabloids showing you are a violent thug - I can't see how that could enhance the winner's life or be of any beneift to him now or in the long run - £1m in his hip pocket or not.





ITV bosses decided Nathan Hageman could not be denied his winnings because producers had let him on the show without proper background checks.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2034523/Red-Or-Black-executives-admit-theyre-powerless-bungled-background-checks.html#ixzz1XG3xlu6s

[Niamh.]

Guess this proves there's no Karma

hahahaha

[lostalex]

2 1/2 years for beating the crap out of a woman? I wouln't consider that doing his time.

If he lied about his crime to the proudcers he shouldn't get a penny. If he thinks it's okay to lie to them, then why should they give him the money?

If he was honest with them from the beginning though, he should get the money.

[lostalex]

That story makes it sound like its fine to beat up a man, but not a woman :bored:

Well beating up a man is not the same as beating up a woman. In the same way that beating up a healthy person is not the same as beating up a disabled person or an elderly person.

All abuse is not equal. Some people are less able to defend themselves.

[Shasown]

2 1/2 years for beating the crap out of a woman? I wouln't consider that doing his time.

If he lied about his crime to the proudcers he shouldn't get a penny. If he thinks it's okay to lie to them, then why should they give him the money?

He didnt pick his punishment you do realise, that was the sentence given to him. He served his sentence therefore has repaid the debt to society and been duly punished for his crime. I dont in any way condone crimes of violence, however I do believe in rehabilitation.

How do we know he did actually lie to producers about his criminal record? Legally all he needed to reveal was the fact he had a conviction for assault and whether that conviction was spent or not under the Rehabiliatation of Offenders Act

[lostalex]

How do we know he did actually lie to producers about his criminal record? Legally all he needed to reveal was the fact he had a conviction for assault and whether that conviction was spent or not under the Rehabiliatation of Offenders Act

I agree, if he was honest with them, then he has every right to the money.

[Pyramid*]

I agree, if he was honest with them, then he has every right to the money.

He was. It appears he did advise of his criminal record re assault. He didn't go into detail, they didn't ask so it seems and and they didn't think to check it out further.

[arista]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/07/red-or-black-removes-contestants

Red or Black? removes two contestants

"Simon Cowell's Syco and ITV take action after making detailed background checks following Nathan Hageman's win"




So they have removed 2 people due.

[Pyramid*]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/07/red-or-black-removes-contestants

Red or Black? removes two contestants

"Simon Cowell's Syco and ITV take action after making detailed background checks following Nathan Hageman's win"




So they have removed 2 people due.


Which shows clearly how pathetic those in the positions of checking these things how are....including the lawyers of the show sitting down checking all the fine print and legalities.

Clearly they couldn't organise a raffle without screwing that up as well.

[Vicky.]

Well beating up a man is not the same as beating up a woman. In the same way that beating up a healthy person is not the same as beating up a disabled person or an elderly person.

All abuse is not equal. Some people are less able to defend themselves.

IMO, it is the same. The only difference is what body parts the two parties have

I know many women who would have the better of a male in a fight anyway, its not like every girl is a fragile little flower who would just cower in a corner. Same as the guy he hit could have been soft as muck and 'weaker' physically than a woman.

[Princess]

It seems totally unfair that his past could affect him winning money. They're not connected at all. He did his time, they should leave him be.

[Livia]

Lawyers for the woman he hit are probably now compiling a civil case against him for compensation.