But this thread is about a time when he accidentally undermarked a contestant, I don't see a need to turn into something it isn't.
(according to a poster on the DS comments section, the dance in question was John Barnes' Foxtrot)
John Barnes got a score of 24, so the other votes may have been two 7's and a 6 (if Craig did give them a 4). John was in the dance-off against Dom and Lilia and was saved by Craig, Arlene and Bruno.
John Barnes got a score of 24, so the other votes may have been two 7's and a 6 (if Craig did give them a 4). John was in the dance-off against Dom and Lilia and was saved by Craig, Arlene and Bruno.
It would make sense, seeing as Craig gave Dominic a 5 but saved John in the dance-off.
It would make sense, seeing as Craig gave Dominic a 5 but saved John in the dance-off.
The plot thickens. People are going to be speculating about this until he comes clean and reveals who it is . I don't understand why he felt it necessary to tell about it now. Unless the producer of this Millican show pressured him into revealing something extra spicy to get viewers for her new show.
I'm afraid Craig has lost a lot of credibility this series.
Any stats geniuses out there work out who it could have been? I remember him marking Louis lower than the others quite a bit. It's got me intrigued...
Why could he not just have said, "sorry I held up the wrong paddle what I actually meant to give was . . ."
Its human error, and would have been much less damaging to his reputation to have done that than to admit he lied calling into question his integrity.
Why reveal it at this stage anyway when the competition is over?
To be fair I would rather celebs were underscored rather than overscored. Craig ain't there to be your best friend he is there to give an honest critique of performances which he does. He still has fans, yet another example of the press trolling on him and it makes me sick.
Again, another post which has next-to-nothing to do with this thread.
The post you felt was "nothing to do with this thread" was more relevant to this thread than your own post above which indeed had nothing to do with this thread.
Ignore posts that do not interest you and move on. Why the pique?
The post you felt was "nothing to do with this thread" was more relevant to this thread than your own post above which indeed had nothing to do with this thread.
Ignore posts that do not interest you and move on. Why the pique?
Well, if the poster had read the whole thread as opposed to making a fairly irrelevant comment, you wouldn't have made your comment which maybe even more irrelevant than mine.
Why could he not just have said, "sorry I held up the wrong paddle what I actually meant to give was . . ."
Its human error, and would have been much less damaging to his reputation to have done that than to admit he lied calling into question his integrity.
Why reveal it at this stage anyway when the competition is over?
Holding his hand up at the time would have been honourable, but ruinous to Craig's image as pantomime baddie. Craig admitted in print how much money he made out of being provocative at best, and at worst playing the baddie the audience love to hate.
In professional wrestling it is essential to have a baddie versus a goodie, enabling promoters and wrestlers to work the audience into a frenzy. Craig plays no small part in turning Strictly from feelgood contest into adversarial bear pit. Maybe he believes "There is no such thing as bad publicity."
Well, if the poster had read the whole thread as opposed to making a fairly irrelevant comment, you wouldn't have made your comment which maybe even more irrelevant than mine.
C'mon Stig all Henry was saying was you should respect posters right to air their views. I could understand your annoyance if they'd started talking in great detail about their pets or children but they didn't the poster just made a brief comment on their view of Craig which imo wasn't irrelevant to the thread.
You're allowed to disagree with posters but to cut them down and say their post is 'irrelevant' - Well it's not very pleasant and it isn't the first time it's been pointed out that you've been less than civil on this thread. It's the mods job to decide whether posts are relevant or not.
It's a bit disappointing because you're usually one of the more friendly FMs around here.
Having watched the show he was going to explain further but was cut off by all the not so funny laughing . She said to him "instead of pausing and saying I made a mistake you just carried on" and he started to reply " I pointed out" and was drowned out by the laughter.
So maybe he did point out his mistake to the producers but they told him just carry on with the 4 score.
Comments
No, but we have similar tastes in dancing men!
John Barnes got a score of 24, so the other votes may have been two 7's and a 6 (if Craig did give them a 4). John was in the dance-off against Dom and Lilia and was saved by Craig, Arlene and Bruno.
It would make sense, seeing as Craig gave Dominic a 5 but saved John in the dance-off.
The plot thickens. People are going to be speculating about this until he comes clean and reveals who it is . I don't understand why he felt it necessary to tell about it now. Unless the producer of this Millican show pressured him into revealing something extra spicy to get viewers for her new show.
I'm afraid Craig has lost a lot of credibility this series.
Again, another post which has next-to-nothing to do with this thread.
Why could he not just have said, "sorry I held up the wrong paddle what I actually meant to give was . . ."
Its human error, and would have been much less damaging to his reputation to have done that than to admit he lied calling into question his integrity.
Why reveal it at this stage anyway when the competition is over?
The post you felt was "nothing to do with this thread" was more relevant to this thread than your own post above which indeed had nothing to do with this thread.
Ignore posts that do not interest you and move on. Why the pique?
Well, if the poster had read the whole thread as opposed to making a fairly irrelevant comment, you wouldn't have made your comment which maybe even more irrelevant than mine.
Holding his hand up at the time would have been honourable, but ruinous to Craig's image as pantomime baddie. Craig admitted in print how much money he made out of being provocative at best, and at worst playing the baddie the audience love to hate.
In professional wrestling it is essential to have a baddie versus a goodie, enabling promoters and wrestlers to work the audience into a frenzy. Craig plays no small part in turning Strictly from feelgood contest into adversarial bear pit. Maybe he believes "There is no such thing as bad publicity."
You're allowed to disagree with posters but to cut them down and say their post is 'irrelevant' - Well it's not very pleasant and it isn't the first time it's been pointed out that you've been less than civil on this thread. It's the mods job to decide whether posts are relevant or not.
It's a bit disappointing because you're usually one of the more friendly FMs around here.
That's what I think, I just don't see why he went along with the mistake
Pay Craig £4,000 a show instead of £7,000.
So maybe he did point out his mistake to the producers but they told him just carry on with the 4 score.
What is your problem . ? I will post what I feel like saying TY