Susan Boyle has been taken to a private clinic

I'm not a fan of children generally but I think it's a good thing for them to be involved, especially ones such as Aiden (the dancer), for him, it's a great opportunity that he probably wouldn't get elsewhere. He's not your run of the mill stage school kid. He's also a great role model to other children. Maybe 12 is a better age, I think there's a big difference in maturity between 10 and 12? One of the fab things about Diversity was the age range and I'm not sure they'd have got through without the kids.

You don't take your exams in front of 18 million people ?

I'm all for children competing- in fact, I think to learn to compete properly and handle success and failure is incredibly important. But it's a learning experience and therefore one that shouldn't expose you to public ridicule if you mess up. School sports etc are great because children can compete properly and learn how to manage their nerves, how to pick themselves up when things go wrong etc, but it's a gradual process. Trying to carry that process out in front of millions of people is completely inappropriate, IMO.

I know very young people do compete in sport at top levels- eg Olympic gymnasts- but I'm not sure it's the same. To get to the top in a sporting event will have taken years of competition with increasing amounts of pressure, so a child competing at the Olynmpics will have done other international stuff, national competitions, big regional competitions etc already and will have some idea of how to cope with it. Taking a child who has never done anything like it before and suddenly expecting them to cope with such exposure is completely different, I think- like suddenly being told to run the Olympic 100m in front of the whole world because you're good at running for the bus ?

More than happy to disagree as I honestly don't think it is. For me, the only difference is one is optional and therefore totally your choice to put yourself through it. And I honestly think a 10 yr would be capable of making that decision. Was Hollie capable? No, I don't think so, based on her reaction to what happened. But I don't think that's the case of all 10 yr olds.

Was that the case then? ie she wasn't part of a dance/stage school? In which case I kinda agree in that instance.

All the other children I've seen on there have been preparing for that kinda show for years, be that in stage school productions, small town shows etc.

Just to add.... to be fair, she wasn't in front of 18 million people. She was in a theatre. As are many children in theatre productions all across the west end/country. And children in TV shows.

There was a television camera there, yes. But if you're not prepared for that, then you shouldn't do it. And someone should have made that decision for her if she wasn't in a position to make it herself.

That said, I think a 10 yr old is more than capable of performing to a high standard under those conditions. I don't feel it fair to tar all 10 yr olds with the same brush as Hollie. I dont' believe she was up to it. But I don't think that was because of her age and nothing else.

No, she's another talent school product . . .

Hollie attends the KLF Dance Academy in Burnley.Prior to Britain's Got Talent she performed in shows of Annie and Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.

The location / technecalities of the performance aside - she was performing with a hope of winning a programme that would go on to make her a lot of money. Millions of pounds - how can you compare that to an average school sports day ?.

I feel desperately sorry for Susan Boyle. I'm in agreement that no one is to 'blame' - I don't think anyone could have predicted how the situation was going to explode. I do think that possibly once the media storm really got going, that there may have been more to be done in terms of support etc, but its impossible to say for sure as no one knows what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: Hollie, I'm with Knownowt, Foo et al on this one. I also find drawing a comparison between school sports days and a national televised talent show is misleading to say the least. They're worlds apart in terms of pressure, expectations etc. plus, its all well and good saying that if she wasn't capable, someone should have made the decision for her; the trouble with this is that some parents are even more desperate for the fame/exposure/success than the kids.

You only have to look at the likes of Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, River Phoenix, Gary Cole etc to see that exposing a child to that level of fame can end disasterously.

Granted, not the best comparision in the world ?, but I'm guessing you get my drift?

I don't see it's any different than a child auditioning for the lead role in Billy Elliot musical for exmaple, or similar. I think the issue (for me at least) wasn't the fact a 10 year old went on the show. It was the fact someone let an ill prepared uncapable 10 year old on the show. And (for me) that was due to the child, not her age per say.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. Hey ho. ?.

That's perhaps a little misleading. I've not found anything to say whether the KLF Dance Acadamy is a full time stage school, or a saturday ballet class type affair. And are the productions of Annie and Joseph school productions? Am dram? Professional ones? What role did she play? Annie? or Random orphan number 7?

WIth that info she could be anything from someone having an hour of ballet every saturday morning, and having been a random orphan in a school production, through to full-time stage school, playing annie in a pro production, or anything in between.

I realise this has turned in to a child performance debate now but anyway, back to the original topic, I find it very interesting that just a snippet of information about having a mild 'learning disability' has prompted debate over whether other people had a responsibility to her not to let her go in to the competition / questions over her capacity to consent to the show and assumptions that if she has a learning disability, she wouldn't know what she was letting herself in for! It seems the public are easily running away with this term and I wonder how many people stop to think what having a 'learning disability' actually means. It's actually a huge umbrella term and I'd guess there are probably a huge number of "normal" people who may actually have a mild learning disability but have never been diagnosed and contrary to popular belief, LD is entirely separate from intelligence.

In answer to whether the show should have prevented her from entering, well this would be impossible and I'd imagine would fall under the disability discrimination act, and rightly so. You would have to be incredibly unwell mentally for there to be reasonable grounds to try and stop someone entering something like this in their own interests and even then, you'd be on very sticky ground. It does make for some very interesting debate though. No doubt there, stuff will come out in the media now around her mental health status (maybe it has already, I don't read papers!) and no doubt, this will be along the usual lines of her being crazy/deranged/unhinged, hell, if she's mad, she's probably really dangerous too ? ?

I'm not sure that anyone here is saying that though, are they? My comments earlier about her not being equipped to cope with the level of attention were prompted more by the fact that she got far more attention globally than anyone else on this show, ever - she was on US television multiple times within two days of her initial audition, which I would have thought is something far beyond anyone's expectations when they enter BGT. She entered a show where the prize was singing for the Queen, not an interview with Oprah. I don't think any disability she does have means that she wasn't capable of deciding to enter on a rational basis - but events took off beyond what would be considered rational through no fault of hers.

I'm talking about any child, not Hollie in particular- I've no idea whether she want to stage school (and I'd question whether having singing/dancing lessons is the same as competing for the public vote in front of millions of people). Aidan (who also ended up in tears) definitely wasn't a stage school product.

i think we're probably never going to agree, TBH- I don't see any way in which appearing in the final of BTG is like a school sports day ?

Things were much better dealt with on "I'd Do Anything" on the BBC- the boys did compete for the role but they weren't subjected to a public vote, they weren't judged on one performance but assessed over weeks and they were told the results in a positive way in a prerecorded slot, not live on air in a manner designed to maximise the tension.

I think my issue is with these programmes in general - their very nature is that the contestants' emotional needs come a long way down the list. So I don't think anyone is prepared. We know that Susan Boyle has some history of mental health issues - as Kaz says, that doesn't automatically mean she's not capable of taking part, but I do feel that there could have been ways to have sheltered her from some of the media onslaught.

I only saw clips of the series (it makes me cringe) but I was extremely uncomfortable with watching the little girl get so upset. She was under a lot of pressure (wherever it came from) and I really don't think you can compare that with the level of pressure from exams/musicals or even a West End performance. Again, though, it's not a given that children shouldn't take part. The boy in Stavros Flatley looked like he was having a ball from what I saw (or am I really out of touch there too?). I do wonder about what Hollie's parents said or did to prepare her for it or otherwise.

Yes, people have commented on her having a LD and whether it should have been someone's responsibility to have advised her not to do it or similar. I also said 'has prompted debate' rather than saying 'you hitchers are saying this' as I was also referring to the wider debate, ie TV shows, media etc. I'm not sure if you've mistakenly thought I was directing them at you but I was referring directly to two or 3 posts - the one from Mrs Magic that was actually about the Wright Stuff show and then someone else on here (forgotten who, sorry) said it was a fair assummption that having LD meant she wouldn't have the foresight to know how it would take off or WTTE, sorry I'm paraphrasing and hope I don't distort what was said but can't be ar$ed to find it now. So, I was in fact agreeing with your last point actually. I disagree that it's a fair assumption to say her LD made her naive, I agree with you that no-one could have predicted how events would unfold for her.

That's a very interesting contrast and from what you've said, it looks like they very carefully considered the ethical implications for using children in such a process. I wonder how ITV can effectively get away without doing this? I'm fairly ignorant as I don't read the papers but have there been any complaints to Ofcom or whatever following Hollie's breakdown? Do you think ITV will be made to look at age restrictions on this type of thing? I'm such a cynic but feel pretty sure they allow children for the cute factor to up the ratings. I also think it's very unethical to be a springboard to child careers. Should we really be encouraging children to want to become famous and go on shows like this? It's bad enough they are all aspiring to go on X-Factor but at least there is an age restriction on that. I really hope these 'talent' competitions start to become seen for what they really are - a huge money spinner and 'good' TV - what usually happens to the people who apparently "win"?

Sorry, only just seen this thread again. Wasn't ignoring.

Yes, happy to disagree ?. I agree the sports day analogy was a little off the mark (rotfl]) but you get my drift.

I've just seen the Hollie clip on YouTube so in a better place to comment now really. Everyone forgets their lines, even adults, and I actually think she handled it quite well. Up until the point that is when Ant/Dec said she didn't have time to do it again. It was the stamping of feet/tantrum that I didn't get. I really don't think that attitude will get her far in the tough world of audtions/showbiz... if that's the path she is wanting to follow.

To use your example of the BBC Oliver kids, they handled rejection in a much more professional adult (and dare I say, polite?) manner. And yes, I agree with the fact that that's perhaps the way in which it is delivered. But she wasn't reacting to bad comments from the judges, just at the fact she wasn't getting her way in doing it again. If I'm brutally honest, it did come across as a little bratish.

On TV or not, if my child was to be told no, I certainly wouldn't expect them to stamp their feet and scream in the way she did.

However that said, I totally realise I'm in the minority in feeling that way though (and a strong possibility of being the only one at all to be fair ?). I actually thought she was really cute though and had a good voice. Just not sure she's strong enough to take that career path further, considering how many equally as talented children there are out there without the tantrums.

I think it would be a real shame if because of Hollie they stopped having children on. There were many children on the show, who reacted in a very positive, grown up way (the little boy who did Jungle Book was very composed when he get voted off). Aside from Hollie they were all good role models. Children do have careers, they are on stage, in movies, TV shows etc, so who can't they take part? I'm not convinced on the child pop star thing but that's a personal choice. The winner of the show would have had to perform live at the Royal Variety so what's the difference to that and a live show? That's the nature of live TV and if she'd been so wound up her Mother/Parents should have made the decision not to let her take part.

I wasn't sure if you were talking about here or referring to a wider debate, which is why I asked. I didn't think you were referring to me in particular either, I just wanted to further clarify what I'd meant - which is that I don't think her LD specifically made her naive, so I agree with you on that. I don't think that she was naive at all, in fact; my point is that the attention she's got is far beyond what anyone would have surely expected on entering BGT.

I think we're agreeing with each other ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTrEP2ZQLF4&feature=related

I havent read the whole thread but I have to post this link given as we're talking about susan and holly

Why is there an assumption made that the production company do not care about the acts? Certainly the finalists I am sure they care about deeply, as aren't they wanting to tour them over the summer? It is in the production company's best financial interests to give these people support and care outside of the broadcasts, and therefore while I don't know for sure, I would hazard a guess that this is what they do.

On the Hollie/children subject, I don't know why children can't be treated differently. It seems to be stated (on the show) over and over that they are being treated like adults

1. no, they are not

2. why would they be, they are children. We don't treat children like adults in real life, generally, so why is a third rate talent show any different?

I still believe that if Hollie's tears were real, she should have (and would have) been pulled from the show, because what sort of mother/production team puts a child through THAT much stress?

L
xx

I'm with Hazel, KN et al on this with reference to the children. Personally, if my children enjoyed drama etc, I would encourage them to pursue it through school and clubs (as I did), but there is NO WAY I would ever allow them to any kind of public scrutiny like this. My neighbour's daughter (13ish) auditioned for BGT, and I was really upset for her, whatever the outcome (thankfully for her, her "journey" ended in the early stages). I really like my neighbour, and her children, but I think that showed poor judgement. Children don't have the emotional maturity to handle this kind of pressure or attention, and I can't see any upside to a child's participation. My only exception, at a push, would be children in groups, where there is much less individual pressure.

And as for SB, I think it's perfectly acceptable to allow someone without the emotional capacity (if that is the case with her) to audition, but then I think it's the production company's responsibility to ensure that contestants who go through to the televised stage are psychologically capable, and have sufficient back up from professionals along the way. I don't believe rejecting someone early on because the production company thinks they couldn't cope with the attention is discriminatory, although obviously I'm not a legal bod, so am happy to be corrected. What happened to that poor woman is unacceptable, and I think the media who hounded her can also be held to blame - they can self-regulate on other areas, but chose not to in this instance, which I think is shameful.