Okies, sooo there was some debate IRL and on here in the media section with regard to Britains Got Talent and as to whether it is fair that small children are put through what was obviously a lot of pressure etc to compete against adults. Little Holly obviously brought this all to the surface with her mini meltdown and tantrums. But what do you think? Is it right to allow kids to be put under the same pressure?

I don't think the kids will be under the same pressure. Adults try to protect them from it, as far as I know. I think adults will usually be under more pressure than the children in these kinds of contests because they suffer the press more, and don't have their mothers/fathers/carers to control who sees them and such and such. They just get raided. Little children also have more rights in aspects to press debates etc.

I think the pressure that holly suffered was just stage fright. And to be fair, most people would suffer the same, she showed it in that way, they didn't. They forgave whats his face. The singing delivery man. He had nerve problems, and they could see it, that's why Simon didn't buzz etc. Meh. I think. With her, it would have just been so bad if they hadn't let her go again, but even if they hadn't I think she had more talent than most of the people that were on that show.

I think it's right for them to compete with adults if they have higher levels of talent. -shrugs-

Lol. I get to the end of this, and can see all the flaws with my opinion and why I now don't think it's entirely true, so yah. Hmm. :) As long as it doesn't have like long term scariness. (Y)

Children experience it very differently from adults, because, well, they are pretty different when it comes to dealing with the environment.

Sure, it should be 'allowed'. The kids have parents or guardians after all, and if they don't want their children to be in the spotlight just yet, they have the final say. And if they think it's a good idea for the kid to be on tv, well, it's then raising the child, so it's their choice. And their task to deal with the consequences adequately...

I think kids should be allowed. Hooowever, it's not as easy as that, because of the obvious reason that I've seen many times myself. Years ago I used to watch chat shows, and there were a few epis based around parents who force their children from day one to get into a career that'll really earn them a lot of money. Usually in acting, dancing, singing or playing a musical instrument. And the parents would do this in order for them to get the money that their child is earning because said child is not responsible enough to deal with their own finances. So it was a way of using their children for money, basically. So in that sense, I think it's out of order 'cause there is a lot of pressure on the child and they can easily break down more than a child who's gone into something that they've liked on their own accord.

If it's something genuine that the child has gone into, I think it's great for them to have a shot at it. Obviously, there are gonna be times when it's gonna be too much for them. But so long as no one is forcing them to be on stage, I see no harm in it. They learn themselves how overwhelming it is. And because they're small and don't have the maturity to deal with it, it will sadly leave them in tears sometimes. But I seriously don't think people should stop young children from performing because of that. What's worse than having your dream taken away from you?

I would agree that children can compete in game shows with adults. Even though they tend to get the so called "sympathy" vote because they are younger they can still have as much talent as some of the adults, if not more.

The show's called Britain's got talent. Anyone can apply, whether they're male, female, short, tall, skinny, large, black, white, pink, yellow, orange, albino, old or young, gay or straight, a tranny or not, northerner, southerner etc.

If a kid decides to apply that's their choice made by them and their parents/carers/family. They knew other adults would be applying because it's NOT called "Britain's kids have talent" so they made a decision based on what they knew.

If a kid messes up but they have a real chance of winning, why not let them try out again? If they said no to her there'd be a whole other debate such as "ITV production team shattered a ten year old's dream by not letting her try again" or something similar. If the judges said no, they'd be seen as cruel, mean and unfair to younger children for not giving her another chance.

Most of us probably knew people like Susan Boyle and Hollie Steel stood no chance against Flawless or Diversity for example, but each act goes up and they try their best. That's the whole point of it, even if they don't win it.

Sorry, I haven't ready any of the above other than the inital post and all this is just my opinion and how I see things as a person who just watched some of the acts during this entire series.

I think kids can go on if they want to. If they didn't want to perform in front of all those people and their parents were forcing them on it'd be a different story.

I don't really watch BGT, or any other talent-based shows for that matter maybe because I don't watch a lot of TV but also the audience and panel always seem repulsively mean on those contestants who suck. The schadenfreude gets lost with an audience so big I think.