It will be interesting to see how the the tabloids spin that. Or will they just pretend it never happened? ^_^
Mind you, there's irony in there with Ola saying, once the bullying word is out there, people will believe it regardless. She's right, but I wonder if she ever did anything to protect Karen's reputation last year.
Mind you, there's irony in there with Ola saying, once the bullying word is out there, people will believe it regardless. She's right, but I wonder if she ever did anything to protect Karen's reputation last year.
If I remember rightly, Ola did speak up for Karen.........she tweeted asking people to stop being horrible to Karen and said ** she's done nothing wrong**
I can see his point in this quote
"In other ways when it's decisively brought up to answer it as truthfully as we can and I think that we've done that and it will blow over."
Perhaps if Zoe had been able to ask the question directly on ITT it could have been laid to bed much earlier (I have no doubt she wasn't able to).
I am glad they have had their opportunity to speak out now.
The thing that astonishes me is how ready people were to believe a thing so inauthentic in every way. Or maybe they didn't believe it so much as enjoyed the mud-slinging??
Everything that the insider has produced has been small-minded and bitter, words you wouldn't automatically associate with Steve ;-) but which could maybe help the producers identify their Elstree leak.
I would hate to think the producers sanction these leaks but, even if they don't, they have a duty (I believe) to get control of this weasel. They're causing harm to people on their show, pros and celebs; they're spreading disharmony; and they're damaging the simple pleasure of the show. All for a few bucks. A concerted effort to weed the bugger out would be welcome
I'm lost - if the story is in fact "inauthentic in every way" why presume a leak? Why castigate the producers and the BBC for something that could well be a bored DM journalist or Steve's mum's hairdresser?
I'm lost - if the story is in fact "inauthentic in every way" why presume a leak? Why castigate the producers and the BBC for something that could well be a bored DM journalist or Steve's mum's hairdresser?
What else would a "leak" and a responsibility to "control the weasel" indicate other than a BBC employee?
Ah, yes, I suspect it could well be a BBC employee -- unless even the claim to be an 'insider' or a 'source' is made up. Someone's making a quick buck on the side... That's how it seems to me. Strongly doubt that the producers are behind it though, much as I'd like to back James Jordan ;-)
That's all I mean by 'leak'. Someone's using their position to pick up tiny things and turn them into huge distortions.
Dunno though. It could be a bored journalist on the Mail, the Star and the Mirror. They'll have a few of those
I'm lost - if the story is in fact "inauthentic in every way" why presume a leak? Why castigate the producers and the BBC for something that could well be a bored DM journalist or Steve's mum's hairdresser?
Something can be leaked and quoted completely out of context but the tabloid can claim it is true.
Steve could joke to someone that 'Ola had been bullying him again', in context it would be obviously just a joke but quoted on its own fhen it means something quite different.
Something can be leaked and quoted completely out of context but the tabloid can claim it is true.
Steve could joke to someone that 'Ola had been bullying him again', in context it would be obviously just a joke but quoted on its own fhen it means something quite different.
Ah, yes, I suspect it could well be a BBC employee -- unless even the claim to be an 'insider' or a 'source' is made up. Someone's making a quick buck on the side... That's how it seems to me. Strongly doubt that the producers are behind it though, much as I'd like to back James Jordan ;-)
That's all I mean by 'leak'. Someone's using their position to pick up tiny things and turn them into huge distortions.
Dunno though. It could be a bored journalist on the Mail, the Star and the Mirror. They'll have a few of those
I mean, even as a low-tier blogger I've been told a number of stories from a few reasonably good "sources" and "insiders" over the years about pro behaviour that'd make your curls curl (not saying I believed any or all of it) and not one of them was a bona fide "stop doing this or we'll fire you"able BBC employee. Suggesting the producers can launch some sort of Columbo investigation to prevent this sort of thing happening is a bit unfair.
I mean, even as a low-tier blogger I've been told a number of stories from a few reasonably good "sources" and "insiders" over the years about pro behaviour that'd make your curls curl (not saying I believed any or all of it) and not one of them was a bona fide "stop doing this or we'll fire you"able BBC employee. Suggesting the producers can launch some sort of Columbo investigation to prevent this sort of thing happening is a bit unfair.
Unfair to the producers!? I'm trying hard to care... I thought I was unreasonably sympathetic to folk...
How about unfair to the people the programme should be loyal to? There's something wrong in the system that allows an unnamed source to allege, for example, that Kristina has been told by her employer she won't be partnered with married celebrities without a word of correction from that employer. It's a horrible and humiliating thing to let sit in a national newspaper. Was it ever denied? I don't remember hearing that it was. If they can't stop the stories from hitting the press there could be a more robust policy of defending their people. Or it looks like they're condoning the reports.
The relationship between the tabloids and the programme isn't a healthy one.
I know it's 'publicity' but why does it always have to be bad news?
ETA being told the toe-curlers and not passing them on is the completely honourable thing to do -- even if some of them turned out to be true. Private stuff is private stuff
He's been completely lovely, a gentleman and great fun, working hard and being self effacing.
It's revealing about Ola that she was a person with whom he could not connect.
He's been completely lovely, a gentleman and great fun, working hard and being self effacing. It's revealing about Ola that she was a person with whom he could not connect.
Who has said that and has it been confirmed, or supposition
I mean, even as a low-tier blogger I've been told a number of stories from a few reasonably good "sources" and "insiders" over the years about pro behaviour that'd make your curls curl (not saying I believed any or all of it) and not one of them was a bona fide "stop doing this or we'll fire you"able BBC employee. Suggesting the producers can launch some sort of Columbo investigation to prevent this sort of thing happening is a bit unfair.
Oooooh, what level of bribery will get you to dish the dirt? I have a pair of Brendan's briefs circa 2007.
Unfair to the producers!? I'm trying hard to care... I thought I was unreasonably sympathetic to folk...
How about unfair to the people the programme should be loyal to? There's something wrong in the system that allows an unnamed source to allege, for example, that Kristina has been told by her employer she won't be partnered with married celebrities without a word of correction from that employer. It's a horrible and humiliating thing to let sit in a national newspaper. Was it ever denied? I don't remember hearing that it was. If they can't stop the stories from hitting the press there could be a more robust policy of defending their people. Or it looks like they're condoning the reports.
The relationship between the tabloids and the programme isn't a healthy one.
I know it's 'publicity' but why does it always have to be bad news?
ETA being told the toe-curlers and not passing them on is the completely honourable thing to do -- even if some of them turned out to be true. Private stuff is private stuff
Can you imagine anything your average Daily Mail reader would believe less than a robust denial from the BBC of any wrongdoing on the part of their employees? They'd probably have come to the conclusion that Steve was a paedophile. Their response was exactly the correct one, if it's as James Jordan was spewing it was - allow Steve and Ola to get on as usual and people would see for themselves what their working relationship was like, without spawning further repetitions of the story, getting it more eyeballs by issuing statements and denials and defences.
The Kristina example is again, perfect. To anybody outside this echo chamber of a forum it's chip paper and 99% of the audience will never even have read it, let alone remembered it. The BBC nosiliy going "NO WE LOVE KRISTINA AND TRUST HER TO BEHAVE APPROPRIATELY WITH HER VAGINA AT ALL TIMES!" would have meant more publicity for it, more speculation, and more nonsense with barely one fewer person believing it was true.
Can you imagine anything your average Daily Mail reader would believe less than a robust denial from the BBC of any wrongdoing on the part of their employees? They'd probably have come to the conclusion that Steve was a paedophile. Their response was exactly the correct one, if it's as James Jordan was spewing it was - allow Steve and Ola to get on as usual and people would see for themselves what their working relationship was like, without spawning further repetitions of the story, getting it more eyeballs by issuing statements and denials and defences.
The Kristina example is again, perfect. To anybody outside this echo chamber of a forum it's chip paper and 99% of the audience will never even have read it, let alone remembered it. The BBC nosiliy going "NO WE LOVE KRISTINA AND TRUST HER TO BEHAVE APPROPRIATELY WITH HER VAGINA AT ALL TIMES!" would have meant more publicity for it, more speculation, and more nonsense with barely one fewer person believing it was true.
Agreed. I have friends & family who only watch the show on Saturday and are blissfully unaware of the big issues discussed in full on here. "Echo chamber" is a very good description of DS.
Comments
This is where things were at before the new series http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz-tv/hot-tv/397224/EXCLUSIVE-Strictly-dancers-Karen-and-Ola-fight
James reportedly still unhappy about it..
However K & O seemed very friendly at the end of the Results Show when Ola got eliminated....
If I remember rightly, Ola did speak up for Karen.........she tweeted asking people to stop being horrible to Karen and said ** she's done nothing wrong**
"In other ways when it's decisively brought up to answer it as truthfully as we can and I think that we've done that and it will blow over."
Perhaps if Zoe had been able to ask the question directly on ITT it could have been laid to bed much earlier (I have no doubt she wasn't able to).
I am glad they have had their opportunity to speak out now.
Everything that the insider has produced has been small-minded and bitter, words you wouldn't automatically associate with Steve ;-) but which could maybe help the producers identify their Elstree leak.
I would hate to think the producers sanction these leaks but, even if they don't, they have a duty (I believe) to get control of this weasel. They're causing harm to people on their show, pros and celebs; they're spreading disharmony; and they're damaging the simple pleasure of the show. All for a few bucks. A concerted effort to weed the bugger out would be welcome
I don't think it is the BBC.
Ah, yes, I suspect it could well be a BBC employee -- unless even the claim to be an 'insider' or a 'source' is made up. Someone's making a quick buck on the side... That's how it seems to me. Strongly doubt that the producers are behind it though, much as I'd like to back James Jordan ;-)
That's all I mean by 'leak'. Someone's using their position to pick up tiny things and turn them into huge distortions.
Dunno though. It could be a bored journalist on the Mail, the Star and the Mirror. They'll have a few of those
Something can be leaked and quoted completely out of context but the tabloid can claim it is true.
Steve could joke to someone that 'Ola had been bullying him again', in context it would be obviously just a joke but quoted on its own fhen it means something quite different.
You've explained it much better than I could, ta
Karen comes off best in the long run though, as according to the article she won't have the bother of having to speak to James ever again - result!
I mean, even as a low-tier blogger I've been told a number of stories from a few reasonably good "sources" and "insiders" over the years about pro behaviour that'd make your curls curl (not saying I believed any or all of it) and not one of them was a bona fide "stop doing this or we'll fire you"able BBC employee. Suggesting the producers can launch some sort of Columbo investigation to prevent this sort of thing happening is a bit unfair.
Unfair to the producers!? I'm trying hard to care... I thought I was unreasonably sympathetic to folk...
How about unfair to the people the programme should be loyal to? There's something wrong in the system that allows an unnamed source to allege, for example, that Kristina has been told by her employer she won't be partnered with married celebrities without a word of correction from that employer. It's a horrible and humiliating thing to let sit in a national newspaper. Was it ever denied? I don't remember hearing that it was.
The relationship between the tabloids and the programme isn't a healthy one.
I know it's 'publicity' but why does it always have to be bad news?
ETA being told the toe-curlers and not passing them on is the completely honourable thing to do -- even if some of them turned out to be true. Private stuff is private stuff
I suspect that not Steves fault.
He's been completely lovely, a gentleman and great fun, working hard and being self effacing.
It's revealing about Ola that she was a person with whom he could not connect.
Who has said that and has it been confirmed, or supposition
Oooooh, what level of bribery will get you to dish the dirt? I have a pair of Brendan's briefs circa 2007.
Can you imagine anything your average Daily Mail reader would believe less than a robust denial from the BBC of any wrongdoing on the part of their employees? They'd probably have come to the conclusion that Steve was a paedophile. Their response was exactly the correct one, if it's as James Jordan was spewing it was - allow Steve and Ola to get on as usual and people would see for themselves what their working relationship was like, without spawning further repetitions of the story, getting it more eyeballs by issuing statements and denials and defences.
The Kristina example is again, perfect. To anybody outside this echo chamber of a forum it's chip paper and 99% of the audience will never even have read it, let alone remembered it. The BBC nosiliy going "NO WE LOVE KRISTINA AND TRUST HER TO BEHAVE APPROPRIATELY WITH HER VAGINA AT ALL TIMES!" would have meant more publicity for it, more speculation, and more nonsense with barely one fewer person believing it was true.
That sounds more like a threat.
Agreed. I have friends & family who only watch the show on Saturday and are blissfully unaware of the big issues discussed in full on here. "Echo chamber" is a very good description of DS.