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."

[NellieTheEllie]

For me the problem isn't that he's been in prison and its in the past, it is that surely they can't allow one criminal to enter and not another. I'm not sure how well it would sit with me if he'd been a convicted paedophile/rapist/murderer who had 'done his time' and had won the million. I appreciate that any ex criminal can buy a lottery ticket, but if they are sensible they refuse publicity and remain anonymous. Black or red is splashed across my telly at prime time.
Also, i think itv are trying to get out of paying because although he admitted the crime, he lied about it being a man - so technically he obtained money by deception. Not sure it is fair to take it back now. Itv should have better checks (one phone call would have done it)
Its a difficult one.

[harassedandherbug]

Of course he should keep the money, he won it fair and square.

He did the crime and served the time. End of.

Actually I'm biased, as my dh was in prison for an offence over 10 years ago. I'll tell him to stop playing the lottery.....

[higgle]

Yes he should keep the money. He has a conviction that everyone knows about. Another contestant might be a foul and evil individual with no convictions but who had also beaten up his partner, kicked the cat and been a total twunt, but we wouldn't know about that.

[controlpantsandgladrags]

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

[HerRoyalNotness]

Yes he should keep it. He shouldn't be made to give some to charity or his victim. If she decided to sue him and was awarded some fair enough.

He has served his time, he should now be allowed to get on with his life.

[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?

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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!

[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.

[Moulesfrites]

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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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'.

[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]

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 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.

[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