XPost: uk.politics.misc, uk.tv, uk.legal 
 XPost: alt.politics 
 From: harry130747@btinternet.com 
  
 "Andy Wainwright"  wrote in message 
 news:l4c2lj$402$1@dont-email.me... 
 > 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. 
 > 
 > 
 > 
  
 Other societies clearly have higher standards than we have. 
 There's a surprise. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)