to ask you should he be allowed to keep the 1 million pound

[AuntiePickleBottom]

ITV is under pressure after it emerged that the first £1 million winner of Simon Cowell's gameshow Red Or Black? was jailed for beating up a woman.

Bricklayer Nathan Hageman was previously reported to have been jailed for attacking his ex-girlfriend's boyfriend.

It has now been reported that the 31-year-old, from Reading, attacked a woman, thought to be his former partner

ITV is holding talks following the revelations, with pressure on the broadcaster to strip Mr Hageman of his win.

An ITV spokesman said: "In light of recent developments, ITV and Syco (Cowell's production company) are making inquiries to establish the facts."

A Reading Crown Court spokesman reportedly told The Sun and the Daily Mirror that the victim of the 2006 assault was a woman.

It is reported that ITV knew about Mr Hageman's five-year jail sentence, of which he served two-and-a-half years, but it is thought that they did not know that the victim was a woman.

Mr Hageman previously told journalists that he attacked a man after he started getting threatening calls from a man in Reading.

"I tried to brush it off but he kept saying he was going to harm me. One night he told me my address and said he was going to come round and batter me in front of my mum and niece Mya, who was only about two," he told The Sun.

When the show was launched in May, presenter Ant McPartlin said: "All the checks will be in place so they're not going to be criminals but when you randomly select people, who knows? And I love the idea that someone from any background could win £1 million."

[frazzle26]

I think he should be allowed to keep it as he has served his time.

[cornsylk]

Simon Cowell wasn't fussed about Cheryl Cole having a criminal record.

[carabos]

Normally when a criminal is sentenced, the sentence is quite clear - maybe something like "go to prison for 18 months". There isn't usually any sort of rider to that which says "and by the way you can't win a bottle of bubble bath on the tombola or £1m on a gameshow ever again." As other posters have said, if he entered and won within the rules, then he keeps the money, simples.

[SardineQueen]

And that serial rapist bloke who got to keep his lottery win.

What's the difference? If he can keep it surely this bloke can,

[SardineQueen]

If they don't want people with criminal records to win the money they need to filter them out first.

He was allowed to enter, he won the competition. So he keeps the money.

If they don't like it they need to change their rules/vetting procedures upfront.

Otherwise it makes for:

a. Pretty dull programmes where all the drama of whether someone may or may not win is taken away by the fact that even if they win they may later be deemed not to have won

and

b. It shouldn't be up to the general public / certain areas of the press to decide who is a "worthy" winner of prizes and force TV companies and others to act on it

There was an outcry when thingy won Who want to be a millionairre as she was posh, wasn't there. And there was that "lottery lout" bloke who's blown all his dosh. I'm sure there are more. There's always going to be something.

[fit2drop]

He won it. Fair and square

No difference to a lottery win going to a thug.Just that this win was televised.

Hazel Blear MP is an expense fiddler & tax avoider who had a key position in government and abused that priviledge yet she thinks he should give it to charity supporting victims of abuse which is a bit rich coming from her .
Hes an arse that got lucky, she abused her position and really has no right standing on the moral highground preaching to TV companies

[izzywhizzyletsgetbusy]

I beg to differ, Lougle - Clause 47 is there for a reason, and this case would seem to give ITV/the Producers reason to invoke it.

As for clause 44, it wouldn't be necessary for the victim to watch her attacker on the show as the resultant publicity alone may have caused her distress and suffering.

If the victim was unaware that her attacker was appearing on the show and unwittingly watched it, I suspect that this would be cause to increase the amount of damages claimed.

[Lougle]

47. These terms and conditions may be amended in the sole discretion of ITV and/or the Producers at any time without prior notice.
    
    I think they'd have a hard time justifying a restrospective change.
    
    Regarding clause 44, there are no laws protecting victims of crime of seeing their attacker on TV. I don't think it would get very far to claim that a TV company caused her distress. She didn't have to watch the gameshow, did she?

[izzywhizzyletsgetbusy]

I don't see anything that says 'We can take your prize money away'

This first sentence of this clause would seem to have it covered, Lougle:
47. These terms and conditions may be amended in the sole discretion of ITV and/or the Producers at any time without prior notice. Any changes will be posted on the itv.com website. It is recommended that the applicant print and store or save a copy of these terms and conditions for future reference.

This one is also worthy of further consideration:
44. The applicant agrees to reimburse ITV and/or the Producers in respect of any damages suffered by ITV and/or the Producers or any losses by ITV and/or the Producers resulting from any claim made by a third party in each case in respect of any matter arising from the applicant?s use of the services relating to the application process and/or the Programme in breach of the terms and conditions or from the applicant?s violation of any applicable law or regulation.

It seems to me that it could be argued that the convicted thug's victim is a third party who has been caused further suffering by the publicity given to the applicant because of ITV/the Producers failure to carry out adequate checks on applicants as per their T&C.

I'd like to see an outcome where the victim sues the convicted thug and is awarded a generous sum in compensation for her injuries and is also awarded a generous sum in respect of her claim against ITV/the Producers who, in turn, sue the convicted thug who is required to reimburse the sum they've been required to pay to the victim plus all of the legal costs incurred by the claimants against him.

IMO it would be apt justice if the convicted thug doesn't get to enjoy much of his £1m win.

[Lougle]

"(c) He/she must be prepared to submit to a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check at any time and/or disclose to the Producers when asked, details of any and all convictions and actions pending against them currently and/or any unspent convictions other than driving offences which have not resulted in a ban. At the sole discretion of the Producers, certain convictions or pending criminal proceedings against an applicant may invalidate their application or otherwise result in the termination of their continued participation in the Programme; "

"5. Failure to comply with the eligibility criteria as set out in these terms and conditions, and elsewhere as applicable, or failure to comply with instructions and/or directions given or failure to comply with these terms and conditions in any way, may result in disqualification from further participation in the Programme including without limitation, removal from any location during the Programme. The Producers reserve the right to disregard or to consider any applicant who does not comply with these terms and conditions." www.itv.com/termsandconditions/competitionsandvotes/redorblackparticipantrecruitmenttcs/default.html

I'm not a lawyer, but it says in the T&Cs

"otherwise result in the termination of their continued participation in the Programme; " "may result in disqualification from further participation in the Programme including without limitation, removal from any location during the Programme."

Aside from moral opinions, which people are entitled to disagree on, there is a legal component to this discussion.

I would be arguing that the T&Cs only say 'disqualification from further participation. As the man has:

a) Already applied.
b) Already been successful
c) Declared his conviction (although lied about the victim's identity)
d) Filmed the show
e) Won the money
f) Accepted the prize

I would argue that the man has already completed that process, and that legally, the T&Cs only allow for the man to be disqualified from further participation, ie. reshowings of the episode, show-sponsored publicity, etc.

I don't see anything that says 'We can take your prize money away'.

[SouthernFriedTofu]

Ok I maybe I am misunderstanding here, did he actually lie about the crime on his application? so Itv would have not accepted him becuause they thought the crime was nasty and would give them bad publicity? If that was the case then I can see how they coudl take it back actually, if you lie on a job interview your company would fire you. ALthough yes, they should have checked him better

[SouthernFriedTofu]

Well why not? I don't see how they could take it away from him. Does he "deserve it" probably not, but life isn't fair and sometimes good things happen to bad people.

If he were out on the run running away from the charge that would be different I think

[aldiwhore]

The show should have done more research when his CRB check came back... the public records state that the victim was a woman. So he should keep the money, he won it fair and square and has served his time, is on on 'register' and quiz shows shouldn't really be choosing contestants on how 'nice' they are.... if they are to do that, then they should make sure they do their research before hand.

He should keep the money.

Much as it galls me.

[ownthreadhider]

Is that not what jail is for? For people to pay their debt to society?

Are you then not allowed to the re-enter said society when you have served the allocated sentance and have the same rights as others?

[Moulesfrites]

Oh I didn't realise cowell was behind it! He will be rubbing his hands in glee at all the publicity then....

[izzywhizzyletsgetbusy]

The convicted thug's victim is free to sue for compensation in the civil Courts and now has a reasonable prospect of receiving any award the Court sees fit to make.

If Syco want to address their failure to perform adequate checks on competitors and/or turn any adverse publicity to their advantage, I would suggest that they proactively assist the victim by providing lawyers to draft and file her claim and represent her in Court at no cost to herself.

IMO anything Simon Cowell is involved in is shit viewing Moules.

[ScarletLady01]

Unless there is a stipulation not allowing people with criminal records from entering then of course he should be allowed to keep it.

You can't have a free-for-all gambling show and then decide morally who can and cannot keep their winnings.

He has been deemed rehabilitated (which I thought was one of the main points of prison, it's not just about punishment), so it should make no difference what has happened in the past.

And I also agree with Moulesfrites...IT'S SO BORING!

[Moulesfrites]

Does anyone else think this story has been used to detract from the fact that red or black is the shittest game show ever, a glorified version of heads or tails, dragged out to fill hours or prime time?

[wannaBe]

it's like a gambling show isn't it? If this man went into a cassino and won a million on a roulette table should he have to forfit that?

So he has committed a crime. Not admirable but he has been convicted of said crime by a jury and has served his sentence handed to him by a judge in a court of law, as per the judicial process in this country.

Once he has served his sentence it is not for others to decide whether he should or shouldn't be entitled to win money, on public gameshows or otherwise.

[Jaquelinehyde]

He lied on his application so ITV are well within their rights to remove his winnings.

I personally don't care if they remove it or not, but I'm surprised how many people are saying just let him keep it.

[whackamole]

I think he should be able to keep the winnings.

If there is something in their T&C which wouldn't normally allow him to take part because of the nature of his crime, then tough luck for ITV for not doing their job properly.

[nooka]

This will be totally about the T&C. If there has been some fraud then he will forfeit the prize. Otherwise there is bugger all that can be done, and I agree whether his victim was male or female is besides the point (except presumably his self defense claims would appear even more bogus).

[harassedandherbug]

"He should be compelled to make a sizeable donation to a relevant charity."

Why??? Admittedly it would be nice, but how is it our or ITV's "right" to tell him what to do with it?