Sure she was given a chance to redeem herself so that she could look back and be proud but the biggest point and most important point to make is that the Producers and her mother were PREPARED to take that choice and gamble.  They didnt know, no-one knew, whether in fact Hollie would become anxious, upset and frightened again - it so easily could have gone the other way.  

If she had suffered a second bout then that probably would have finished her career before it even started. 

The producers and her parents gambled, they won but could have lost.   I wouldnt have taken that chance if it were my child  - kids are vulnerable and cant take knockbacks like adults can - so I really believe she should not have gone back on. 

Explaining to Hollie she could have another bash next year would have been sufficient and just the fact that she reached the final against stiff competition means her classmates and everyone who knows her would be giving her positive feedback.  It wont stop anyone who wants to bully her for crying the first time anyway - bullies are cowards and will pick on her first performance not her second.

####

think i would have to agree here.  But the judges made a rod for their own back.  They should have elected to take greg pritchard into the final, that would have been fairer all round

I find it difficult to believe that ITV would be allowed to gamble with a child as young as Hollie given her reaction on stage and how anxious and upset she was.

Was the decision to gamble that Hollie would be ok based on the judges or mother's viewpoint?  I'd like to know if a child psychologist was brought in for his/her opinion on the situation.  I am concerned that if so little consideration is shown to someone so young that it could happen again and next time ITV may not be so lucky with their gamble.