[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.

[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.

[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.