[Ramsay]

He served time
Give him the money

[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.

[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.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[arista]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

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

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

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.

[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.

[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...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 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/arti...#ixzz1XG3xlu6s

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by InOne

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.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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*]

Originally Posted by lostalex

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...es-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*]

Originally Posted by arista

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...es-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.