http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbi...aila-rouass.do

This follows similar apologies and retractions from the Independent and Daily Mail as well as stories being pulled from web-sites from other papers. It's a shame that things have to get this far before the truth comes out. And equally that many members of the public allow themselves to be duped into believing what these rags publish and indeed to then perpetuate these lies on public forums such as these.

I find myself speechless. The whole media, rip-him-apart frenzy was untrue? Good grief.

He publicly aplogised so that bit was true it was on the BBC and HE SAID IT HIMSELF ON ITT....he said he had used the word and realised he had been stupid......so its still true that he used a racist remark........it obviously the 'terrorist' bit that wasnt true.

You'd hope that would be an end to it but I have a feeling there will be the cry of foul from some sections!

I think they seem to get on plus to be honest all of the couples seem to have their moments judging from the VT's. I'd be in more than tears if I had to train 3 or 4 hours a day!!

No. They said that a specific article on the 20th saying that Anton upset her twice and made her cry was untrue.

Nobody disputes that the term p*** was used, though the immediate dropping of the terrorist thing by the NOTW and the fact that no other newspaper took it up is all the proof we need that it wasn't true. But this Evening Standard story was completely made up that Anton had upset Laila on a subsequent occasion (after the show on 17th Oct) and that she took offence at the back-to-front dress remark. Of course, anyone watching will have seen that wasn't the case but it didn't stop a number of papers 'embellishing' that story that offence had been taken. Of course, sources close to Laila tried to support the story but that's another matter. The Daily Mail also took it off their web-site immediately its inaccuracy was shown and it has been taken off other newspaper sites too.

.. and it usually the case that retractions appear tucked away in a tiny corner on Page 7 when the "splash" has been placed prominently in a large font very near the front of the paper.

Sadly it seems to be the case that some people would rather believe the unsubstantiated rubbish that can appear about people than the actual truth. A codicil here is that Anton no doubt said what was reported but he apologised and it was accepted, and yes I know it doesn't make it right.

Ah well.........that perhaps should have been more clear then.

They haven't said what is untrue. That she wept that there were two clashes in which she wept or what. He did still call her a **** and they didn't even deny the terrorist jibe. I guess this non-retraction retraction is suitable for Anton with his non-apology apology.

Well it seems rather odd that a number of other people have recognised what they're getting at! And, if you check the story on 20th October to which they refer then you'll see precisely what they mean. It seems strange that you haven't read my post of 12.49 which clarifies further.

Ah. So not a retraction of him calling her a ****, or of the terrorist remark but of her being being upset by the dress comment which very few peole took seriously anyway. After all if someone calls you a **** and jokes about whether you are a terrorist there is not much point in being upset because they make comments about your dress.

So the retraction is aimed at Laila not Anton ie she is not fiesty and tempramental and did not thow a spat or weep because of a comment about her dress. I just wanted clarity as your post and the article aren't really clear on that.

What's all this about, has there been an issue with Anton?

Only that he still hasn't been hung drawn and quartered. I'll get on the phone now though and see if we can resurrect Tyburn for the day

Twice on ITT that I recall seeing, Anton swore that Laila's viennese waltz was going to be worth 10s, and was going to be the best dance on Strictly ever. This VW turned out to be a close cousin of Skippy the bush kangaroo.

Punters saw these declamations from the Strictly king of ballroom speaking from inside info. They piled in betting Laila to be the top scorer last Saturday, forcing bookie prices from 8/1 down to 5/2.

Those who trusted Anton of the Beke are now weeping more than twice, with little prospect of an explanation let alone an apology.

That was a separate incident from the ones that "made her weep".

Why should he apologise he thought it was a good viennese waltz just like football managers never see fouls and think they have the best team, the same that horse trainers think their horse is the best. If some fool has placed a bet from those ITT episodes well is all I can say

Why should there be an apology? Those who chose to place bets did so on their own volition, and it was quite clear that Anton did not force them to do so. THEY interpreted his words and decided to take an action of their own choosing (hopefully in full knowledge that, as reason would state, Anton could not second-guess the judges marks, nor could he guarantee a faultless performance on the night).


It comes down to people being responsible for their actions.

And of course, there is no evidence that such a statement from Anton led to the flurry of bets either. That is, it seems, just an opportune cause/effect claim that is not supported by any evidence.

I suspect Anton might also be solely responsible for global warming too... If not let's blame him anyways

Did nobody else take his words with a pinch of salt? i honestly thought there was an air of joking about his statements . . . .hmm, just me then

Looks like just you and I took his "cheeky chappie" persona into account.

What has Anton got to explain or apologise for?
The stupidity of punters taking anything that he said as an indication of a surefire bet based on "inside info" has nothing to do with him and everything to do with their own gullability.

Others took into account that he is an idiot, arrogant and a blabbermouth.

Indeed, he still called her a p*** and he's still an ignorant twunt.

Nice of the OP to start another thread about it to remind us though.

Of course your attempt to join together two offensive words is entirely your opinion. I wonder if the moderators should insist on such bile being followed by that pleasant phrase, "in my opinion". For someone to state that Anton Du Beke is what you call him is just your opinion.

And I started this thread to point out that a great deal of the stories the tabloid press have run in the last couple of weeks have been incorrect and several are having to take actions to apologise for this. Therefore any inferrence that I started it for another reason is factually incorrect.

Absolutely valid to start a thread on the subject - as the subject in question is not the p*** remark.

Comments like yours are no more accurate or valid than the article which has been retracted. You're carrying on your tirade in a vacuum.