[cub]

Cheryl's decision not to vote off one of the acts from her category is not unprecedented

Wikipedia:

Osbourne's walkout
During the results of the first live show on 20 October, judge Osbourne walked away from the panel after it was revealed that both the bottom two acts came from her category. This left the three remaining judges (Cowell, Minogue and Walsh) to decide which of the bottom two would leave the contest. When presenter Dermot O'Leary asked Osbourne for her vote she claimed to have left the show, saying, "I'm out—gone". It later emerged that Osbourne was dissatisfied with the last-minute rescheduling of the programme from 17:45 to 17:30, claiming that fewer people saw the performance of her act, Kimberley Southwick, as she was first on stage. After a considerable amount of media coverage, including Paul O'Grady apparently convincing Osbourne to return live on his chat show, it was confirmed on 23 October by Osbourne's spokesman that the judge would return to the show. A newspaper source explained that leaving prematurely would have been breach of contract and the legal repercussions would have made it in Osbourne's interests to return to the panel.

[dannyboy]

Indeed. I was wondering why everyone was acting as if this had never happened before when it had!

[Niamh.]

So it happened once before? So what? Doesn't make it any more right or acceptable

[Vicky.]

Yeah, so it happened once years ago.

What has happened since then has been that judges with 2 acts in the bottom have voted last, so the deadlock option is there. Its just very suspicious as to why do it again now after years of it being different

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yeah, so it happened once years ago.

What has happened since then has been that judges with 2 acts in the bottom have voted last, so the deadlock option is there. Its just very suspicious as to why do it again now after years of it being different

also, back then would I be right in saying that there were only 3 judges? If so then it's not the same situation at all

[Tom4784]

It also happened in the first X Factor, Sharon had two acts in the bottom 2 and she refused to vote.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

also, back then would I be right in saying that there were only 3 judges? If so then it's not the same situation at all

Nah there were 4 judges then

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Nah there were 4 judges then

oh right. Anyway, I don't see why people have such a big issue with them just clarifying things for us? Make a rule and stick with and then no one has any grounds to complain about it

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

oh right. Anyway, I don't see why people have such a big issue with them just clarifying things for us? Make a rule and stick with and then no one has any grounds to complain about it

Well yeah, this is the thing.

They shouldnt be able to just pick and chose when and who they do this to.

Either the judge with 2 has to vote before last, or they can wait until last to take it to deadlock. Its unfair if it depends which acts/judges are bottom

[nanaimo]

Cheryl was still asked second and no one can deny that, thats the problem

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by nanaimo

Cheryl was still asked second and no one can deny that, thats the problem

Yeah exactly, just stick to a rule and let us know what that rule is, it's not too much to ask, is it?

[Adamw92]

I feel so sorry for Cheryl, people are just looking for a reason to hate her lately, I'll admit she's pissed me off a few times this series but either way she'd come out of sunday looking like a bitch because if she chose between Treyc and Katie she'd be called on for favouring one over the other, she should have been asked last and then we'd have a 2-2 vote and it would be fair because both girls would have had a chance of staying, you can't expect her to pick between 2 of her own acts and choose to eliminate one that might end up surviving the sing-off and then have to work with her the next week.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Adamw92

I feel so sorry for Cheryl, people are just looking for a reason to hate her lately, I'll admit she's pissed me off a few times this series but either way she'd come out of sunday looking like a bitch because if she chose between Treyc and Katie she'd be called on for favouring one over the other, she should have been asked last and then we'd have a 2-2 vote and it would be fair because both girls would have had a chance of staying, you can't expect her to pick between 2 of her own acts and choose to eliminate one that might end up surviving the sing-off and then have to work with her the next week.

I think there are only a small portion of people actually blaming Cheryl, most from what I've seen, blame whoever told Dermot to go to her second

[Adamw92]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

I think there are only a small portion of people actually blaming Cheryl, most from what I've seen, blame whoever told Dermot to go to her second

Well apparently 4000 people voted in a poll with about 2800 saying she deserved to be sacked for not voting, some people are so ridiculous

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Adamw92

Well apparently 4000 people voted in a poll with about 2800 saying she deserved to be sacked for not voting, some people are so ridiculous

oh really? I don't particularly like Cheryl but it was unfair to put her in that position when only a couple of weeks previous, Simon was there and they let him go last

[Adamw92]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

oh really? I don't particularly like Cheryl but it was unfair to put her in that position when only a couple of weeks previous, Simon was there and they let him go last

Exactly, it was cruel to Cheryl but in the long run it was Treyc who got screwed, I think some people may boo Katie this week, I wonder if any other judge gets put in that position, if they'll be asked second? probably not.

[Jack_]

This is the point I've been trying to make all week - and it's funny, because there were never any complaints the first time it happened. And you'd think, after all, that's when people would complain? Funny that, isn't it? Funny how no one complains when no one cares about the acts in the Bottom Two? But when it's an act that people want to get rid of, they complain. How odd...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

This is the point I've been trying to make all week - and it's funny, because there were never any complaints the first time it happened. And you'd think, after all, that's when people would complain? Funny that, isn't it? Funny how no one complains when no one cares about the acts in the Bottom Two? But when it's an act that people want to get rid of, they complain. How odd...

so you don't think making it clear is a good idea then?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

so you don't think making it clear is a good idea then?

Where did I say that? I've never said it's not a good idea, though I believe there are/were rules in place that the public didn't know about, and to be quite honest, didn't need to know about. They're just precautionary measures. You can't expect Dermot to read the full T&C's of the Judges vote every single Sunday just to please a few obsessive complainers that are desperately trying to look for ways to moan becuase Katie didn't go/hasn't gone yet. At the end of the day, my point was - none of this moaning /suggestions to make it 'clear' would've occured [like in Series 4, when no moaning occured] if Katie had gone/was another two acts in the Bottom Two.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Jack_

This is the point I've been trying to make all week - and it's funny, because there were never any complaints the first time it happened. And you'd think, after all, that's when people would complain? Funny that, isn't it? Funny how no one complains when no one cares about the acts in the Bottom Two? But when it's an act that people want to get rid of, they complain. How odd...

They only hate the system when it doesn't benefit them. I've been saying it all week, people always turn a blind eye when it's people they don't care about.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

They only hate the system when it doesn't benefit them. I've been saying it all week, people always turn a blind eye when it's people they don't care about.

Exactly. It's outstanding, really, and so transparent...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Where did I say that? I've never said it's not a good idea, though I believe there are/were rules in place that the public didn't know about, and to be quite honest, didn't need to know about. They're just precautionary measures. You can't expect Dermot to read the full T&C's of the Judges vote every single Sunday just to please a few obsessive complainers that are desperately trying to look for ways to moan becuase Katie didn't go/hasn't gone yet. At the end of the day, my point was - none of this moaning /suggestions to make it 'clear' would've occured [like in Series 4, when no moaning occured] if Katie had gone/was another two acts in the Bottom Two.

I didn't say you did, it was a question, hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. No I don't expect Dermot to read out all the terms and conditions but since this has caused some annoyance with the viewers(essentially the people who pay his wages) then I don't see what harm making it clear about what would happen in the future if the same scenario occurred, would do, do you?

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Jack_

This is the point I've been trying to make all week - and it's funny, because there were never any complaints the first time it happened. And you'd think, after all, that's when people would complain? Funny that, isn't it? Funny how no one complains when no one cares about the acts in the Bottom Two? But when it's an act that people want to get rid of, they complain. How odd...

actually people complained about the time change which made kimberley hit the bottom two.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Exactly. It's outstanding, really, and so transparent...

It's what annoys me really, it's completely hypocritical. Ayone with a bit of sense knows that nothing can be trusted as real on the X Factor as situations are often manipulated to create good or tense TV moments. People love it though until they get a result they don't want. I'm not a fan of black and white definitions but you either ignore the system or dislike it, you can't flick and switch every week.

Or what I prefer to do, is not taking it seriously as it's only a TV show and I'll hate all the contestants after Christmas anyway .

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

I didn't say you did, it was a question, hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. No I don't expect Dermot to read out all the terms and conditions but since this has caused some annoyance with the viewers(essentially the people who pay his wages) then I don't see what harm making it clear about what would happen in the future if the same scenario occurred, would do, do you?

But I don't really see the point, because had two other acts been in the Bottom Two, or had Katie already left the show, no one would've even batted an eyelid. The only reason there's a fuss is because Katie stayed. So why should they have to pander to some obssesive, scrutinizing Katie haters wishes?