XPost: uk.politics.misc, uk.tv, uk.legal 
 XPost: alt.politics 
 From: andrewrichardwainwright@hotmail.co.uk 
  
 Whilst I've never watched a whole episode of this show, a few seasons 
 back they brought in this wonderful "Judges Houses" thing. The idea was, 
 contestants would jet off to some exotic bling-filled chav pad to be 
 mentored by the judges. 
  
 Little problem here. One had a house in Florida, one in Dubai. 
  
 Some people are not covered by the US visa waiver scheme (I'm one 
 myself) . If I want to fly to the USA I need to apply a year or so in 
 advance and sometimes appeal if not intially successful. This is despite 
 having no serious criminal record or involvement in terrorism, simply 
 having a breakdown and at that time needed to be datined for my own and 
 others' safety. 
  
 A common conviction (I don't have this) is one for soft drug possesion, 
 perhaps half and ounce of weed or something. Whilst UK courts will 
 generally give a slap on the wrist for this, it's something the US 
 immigration authorities take a dim view of. Shoplifting as a teenager 
 can cause similar problems on this front, again even if no custodial 
 sentence was imposed. Whilst it's not behaviour I'd condone, it's 
 something a sizeable minority of children have done. 
  
 On on to Dubai- now there's a can of worms if every there was one. For 
 example, there was a serious (!!) suggestion to bring in a facial 
 recognition system to "spot" gays. Obviously pretty damn silly, but if 
 you were amongst the LGBT community, it's not a place you'd want to go- 
 in fact it could be very dangerous for you. 
  
 Foreign travel at all is going to stop refugees- it can take up to five 
 years to get the required documents for this. 
  
 Of course, if you actually did have a concrete recording contract with a 
 major record company, whilst these would be obstacles, a good legal team 
 could clear them. But the contestants haven't actually won, so they 
 haven't got a deal. 
  
 So OK, we've taken out the refugees, the mental, the gays, the druggies, 
 the petty crooks. In fact a lot of very big stars from the past were in 
 one or more of these catagories. Freddie Mercury, Ozzie Ozborne, Amy 
 Winehouse, Elvis, Whitney Houston, Elton John- it goes on a bit doesn't 
 it... 
  
 Now whilst this could be deemed if formal employment illegal 
 discrimination on all manner of grounds, because it's a contest it's not 
 covered. Yet in ethical terms, discrimination it still very much is. 
  
 On pure artistic grounds, most of the initial auditions are carried out 
 by TV researchers not say, musicians. This can make a lot of difference- 
 for instance a singer will sound crap with the wrong material and the 
 wrong key however actually talented they might be. In addition, 
 standards are a lot higher for the less visually aesthetic, and if 
 you're a songwriter they're rarely interested, so you can forget your 
 Bob Dylans and so forth. 
  
 If shows like this were just a drop in the popular musical ocean, it 
 wouldn't be much to worry about. Unfortunately, this sort of show has 
 become one of the few ways talent can break these days. With the focus 
 on these "talent" contests, it's shifted away from the local live music 
 venues. It seems that the A&R men and audiences alike are prefering the 
 spoon fed diet from the telly as opposed to actually going out and seing 
 singers and bands. Perhaps worse of all, it's encouraged 
 non-constructive criticism across the board, with it becoming more 
 fashionable to rubbish from the sideline than to pick up an instrument 
 and attempt to do something better oneself. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)