James has been banned!

hilary2329hilary2329 Posts: 452
Forum Member
I see in the paper today (so it must be true lol) that James has been banned from the live shows and from Elstree

I suppose in a way you can understand the BBC but it does seem a bit petty, what do you think?
«13456

Comments

  • pothuthicpothuthic Posts: 47,102
    Forum Member
    How dare they ban Brad Pitt.

    (good riddance)
  • VicsMumVicsMum Posts: 5,666
    Forum Member
    Do you have a link for the article, please?
  • Spin turnSpin turn Posts: 1,402
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I can't find anything on google. Just James (on Twitter) saying 13h ago that he's looking forward to supporting Ola and meeting Steve. So a link would be useful. Thanks.
  • holly berryholly berry Posts: 14,287
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yes, a link would be useful to gauge what is being reported.:)
  • ArcanaArcana Posts: 37,521
    Forum Member
    Didn't care for him on Strictly and he managed to go down in my estimation on BB so if I never see him again I'll cope.
  • hilary2329hilary2329 Posts: 452
    Forum Member
    I am on my iPad on holiday and can't see how to post a link but it is an article written by Katie Evans in today's People. On page 17 if you want to look online.
  • J.RJ.R Posts: 2,953
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I just had a quick look at the Mirror and DM but nothing on either of those - nor on a google search? If true then yes very petty, but it seems unlikely.
  • MuggsyMuggsy Posts: 19,251
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't think this can be true. James has already told us he's going to be spending his Saturday nights at home drinking beer and watching X Factor and we know he's an "honest person" who "tells it like it is". So there's no need to ban him; he won't be there anyway.
  • End-Em-AllEnd-Em-All Posts: 23,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If it's true, it's not petty at all banning someone who has no respect for his "wife's" colleagues who also happen to be his ex colleagues.
  • hilary2329hilary2329 Posts: 452
    Forum Member
    Muggsy wrote: »
    I don't think this can be true. James has already told us he's going to be spending his Saturday nights at home drinking beer and watching X Factor and we know he's an "honest person" who "tells it like it is". So there's no need to ban him; he won't be there anyway.


    Sounds like a plan if he's on his own!
  • hilary2329hilary2329 Posts: 452
    Forum Member
    End-Em-All wrote: »
    If it's true, it's not petty at all banning someone who has no respect for his "wife's" colleagues who also happen to be his ex colleagues.

    Tend to agree with you end-em-all!
  • Caramel CrunchCaramel Crunch Posts: 4,744
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't blame them. Why would they want someone hanging around causing tension & ill feeling?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,340
    Forum Member
    I don't know if the story is true but, if it is, maybe the ban is because he is a negative and argumentative presence behind the scenes. Maybe they got rid of him because he was unpleasant to on-screen performers and backstage staff? He does come across as an entitled bully.
  • Spin turnSpin turn Posts: 1,402
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    hilary2329 wrote: »
    I am on my iPad on holiday and can't see how to post a link but it is an article written by Katie Evans in today's People. On page 17 if you want to look online.

    Can't find it online, but asked my mum who gets the People and, yes, a "Strictly source" is saying he has been banned because he is viewed as "a stirrer".

    I would have thought he'll be even more outspoken if he has been banned. :o:o:o:o.
  • End-Em-AllEnd-Em-All Posts: 23,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I suspect the divisive character that is James knows he's inconsequential as far as Stricty is concerned so is mouthing off in other to get noticed.

    Poor guy. I really think he's got "issues".
  • Janet43Janet43 Posts: 8,008
    Forum Member
    Here's the link:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/strictly-come-dancing-bosses-james-4257544

    They were obviously in a hurry with the headline and left out the word "banned".
  • Pet MonkeyPet Monkey Posts: 11,923
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Are they engineering things to make Ola walk? How much of this is panto? I'm thinking about the inclusion of the extra Pro this year (lovely Anya)
  • End-Em-AllEnd-Em-All Posts: 23,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Don't be surprised if Ola "sensationally" leaves the show claiming she was bullied by the BBC and/or colleagues because of the "humourous" comments by her husband.

    James' outburts could be contrived!
  • CravenHavenCravenHaven Posts: 13,953
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There's nothing like proof reading, is there. And that title is nothing like it.
    End-Em-All wrote: »
    Don't be surprised if Ola "sensationally" leaves the show claiming she was bullied by the BBC and/or colleagues because of the "humourous" comments by her husband. !
    Ironic that Ola is the one that stays in, since she kicked off stuff with Karen by tweeting ill-feeling last year.
    I wouldn't trust James not to shout from the audience if Team Ola receive any criticism, as if he's still in the show
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,340
    Forum Member
    Ooh, I really like Anya. I think she and Steve would have been a lovely pairing. Steve is such a genuinely nice guy. I hope none of the toxicity surrounding the Jordans affects his chances on the show.

    I'm hoping the behind the scenes retention of Anya is a sign she will be returning next year or maybe in the Christmas special. Sometimes I'm truly befuddled by who Strictly chooses to keep and who they choose to jettison.
  • Pet MonkeyPet Monkey Posts: 11,923
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ooh, I really like Anya. I think she and Steve would have been a lovely pairing. Steve is such a genuinely nice guy. I hope none of the toxicity surrounding the Jordans affects his chances on the show.

    I'm hoping the behind the scenes retention of Anya is a sign she will be returning next year or maybe in the Christmas special. Sometimes I'm truly befuddled by who Strictly chooses to keep and who they choose to jettison.

    Agree absolutely with every word :)
  • CravenHavenCravenHaven Posts: 13,953
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm hoping the behind the scenes retention of Anya is a sign she will be returning next year or maybe in the Christmas special. Sometimes I'm truly befuddled by who Strictly chooses to keep and who they choose to jettison.
    Might be purely who the producers find it easy to dictate to. They are determined to treat the dancers as commodities, not as celebrities in their own right. I am sure Vincent & Flavia were correct in reasoning that when they had such a big show that they should choose the time to leave, themselves.
    Choosing Janette over Anya cannot be over dance/instruction reasons.
  • Pet MonkeyPet Monkey Posts: 11,923
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There's nothing like proof reading, is there. And that title is nothing like it.

    Ironic that Ola is the one that stays in, since she kicked off stuff with Karen by tweeting ill-feeling last year.
    I wouldn't trust James not to shout from the audience if Team Ola receive any criticism, as if he's still in the show

    Mind you, the headline was heading for three lines. I can understand them trimming away non-essential words.

    No one's coming out of this well. Not James, not the BBC. It's just petty. What's wrong with off-camera shouted abuse on a live programme I'd like to know :(
  • fatskiafatskia Posts: 11,037
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Pet Monkey wrote: »
    Are they engineering things to make Ola walk? How much of this is panto? I'm thinking about the inclusion of the extra Pro this year (lovely Anya)

    I don't think the bosses are mad.

    In the Launch Show they had Natalie mopping lots of fake tan onto Ola - which is a joke back at the 'controversial' comments in some tabloids attributed to Ola, about some people on the show using too much fake tan.

    Its probably considered publicity and a bit of controversy puts bums on seats watching the right channel.
  • aggsaggs Posts: 29,461
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pet Monkey wrote: »
    Mind you, the headline was heading for three lines. I can understand them trimming away non-essential words.

    No one's coming out of this well. Not James, not the BBC. It's just petty. What's wrong with off-camera shouted abuse on a live programme I'd like to know :(

    Anything from an unnamed 'source' I would treat with the utmost suspicion. I think it's just place holding PR and media spin to keep the headlines ticking over until the show proper starts.
Sign In or Register to comment.