There's a sucker trusts the system every minute

Bearing in mind our ongoing discussions with OFCOM regarding the big idea, one does tend to wonder about how the authorities draw the distinction between awry, 'ripped 'off and outright fraud these days:

Richard and Judy quiz ‘con’

And what they ever do about it.

Guardian - You say, who pays? Richard and Judy show faces inquiry over teatime quiz
Indy - Revealed: Richard and Judy quiz scam
BBC - Richard and Judy in quiz apology
Times - Richard and Judy apologise for quiz
Mirror - RICHARD & JUDY'S FOUR YEAR CON
Times - Probe into Richard and Judy phone quiz
BBC - Madeley 'livid' over quiz scandal
Guardian - Richard and Judy quiz controversy deepens
Indy - Richard and Judy pull plug on phone-in quiz
Observer - Richard and Judy scandal grows
Guardian - We must stop TV companies ringing up the profits

Times - BBC feels the heat as cookery programme calls are investigated

Oh, this just gets too delicious.
And OFCOM and ICSTIS get paid how much, by whom to do what, exactly?

Guardian - BBC axes pre-recorded Saturday Kitchen episodes
Guardian - Premium-rate phoneline scandal reaches BBC
Mirror - NINE PHONEY TV PHONE-INS
Times - Host who was in two places at once
What a link! Shame there is no comment function! I just wonder why the solution to defrauding viewers is to give 'a stern telling to' to the scum-buckets who bilked them
Times - City’s new police chief spells out the true cost of fraud
Times - BBC show must hand over pudding tapes
Times - I have dialled the future – and won
Telegraph - X Factor's voters paid too much
Daily Star - Factor phone votes 'rip off'
Daily Mirror - REFUNDS AFTER NEW TV VOTE BLUNDER
Daily Mirror - NINE PHONEY TV PHONE-INS
Indy - 'X Factor' vote blunder made ITV £200,000
Telegraph - ITV suspends premium rate phone-ins
BBC - ITV suspends premium phone-ins
Times - ITV pulls the plug on phone-ins after series of scandals

As a participant in a voter-driven reality TV show, who was the
cause of some to commit funds to these guys pockets in support
of what they thought was fair contest, I am intrigued as to how this
still seems to be more 'slap wrist, don't do it again' as opposed to
what it seems to me to be clearly: fraud. Why?

The Sun - Lid lifted on TV phone scandal

Sad to see so many readers saying it is participants' own greed and fault. These were competitions entered into in good faith. How many of these smug individuals go to the bookies? Would they feel the same if the arrival of the winning nag was predetermined?

You may like to add Sky and Ricochet to your investigation. Along with the competence of OFCOM or ICSTIS to handle much less police these scams.

I am now four months into a complaint regarding Sky's Big Idea. So far the former has managed to claim it has lost the evidence I supplied and I have not heard back on a request to resubmit the forms. The latter has never replied.

We are dealing with the crime of fraud here are we not?

Why is it being treated like a wrist-slapping, don't do it again? The amounts alone are vast. The principle even more important.

Times - Company in phone-in inquiry wins betting deal So the whole fraud thing is OK? I wouldn't bet on it.

Guardian - Police may be called in over fixed TV shows
G Media Talk
Mirror - WATCHDOG WARNS OF LEGAL ACTION
Guardian - A Watershed moment

An interesting collection of responses from the more intelligent end of the liberal media. Wish I was so smart.

I look forward to all your faces when some aspect of your life is compromised by what the Mirror quotes 'Phone-in watchdog' as saying: 'This is 'semi fraud''. Which errs on being a little bit pregnant in my book.

Someone invites you to take part in a process involving your time and/or money on a set of stated criteria that you agree to, possibly involving calculated risk. Only they are not as stated and the other side has had no intention of honouring them. Tough. Apply that basis to every aspect of your relationships in life.

I was a contestant in a show on SKY (interestingly the BBC this morning stated they were the only major not involved - tell that to the OFCOM and ICSTIS gusy I'm dealing with... if painfully....slowly) that did not feel kosher as a viewer-decided contest to many of those who invested time (and hence money) and money in taking part. And when it came to voting a lot of folk felt they were part of an honest process.

How we chose/choose to spend our money is up to us, so long as it falls within the laws of the land.

Let ye who would cast nasturtiums make sure ye don't suffer from hay fever at a later stage.

Times - Endemol loses its shine over scandals
Times - Channel 5 faked winners of phone-in quiz and put staff on air as contestants
Times - Eckoh chief reluctant to take all the phone-in flak