Indeed, although making up direct quotes from someone is a different matter than making up what a supposed 'source' says.

I was disappointed to read Joe's comment and as he did not say what he said to the producers about Craig we will never know if there is any thruth to his claim. I felt very sorry for Phil this week as he did not deserve to leave the show. Phil, remember, actually danced after having surgery on his knee with no fuss, tears or drama and did a good job. I thought he danced beautifully this week and was shocked and amazed when he was voted out of the dance-off. I do not understand in this computer age why the BBC cannot produce the exact number of phone votes received by each celeb each week. There is no excuse or logical reason to refuse to produce these figures!! I also felt more comfortable about SCD voting system when a percentage went to Children in Need. Now it all goes to the BBC.

Very good post. How true and sad in this day and age you cannot trust anyone!! I cannot vote as I do not live in England but I would refuse to vote if I felt the whole show was rigged. What has been the official excuse as to why they cannot produce the exact number of votes each celeb has received on X Factor and Strictly?? Does anyone know??????

With the greatest respect, it's not a good post as all the scandals floopy lists were dealt with, very publicly and conclusively. Heads rolled. All broadcasters have had to clean up their act and the BBC possibly more so than most. That happened some time ago, therefore the chances of Strictly being manipulated don't really exist.

TXF does release viewer's voting figures - after the series has finished. SCD has said it won't - possibly because it would highlight how the judges' deliberately vote to counteract the public's favourites. Might that change in the new era of the BBC being more open? Who knows ...

There is transparency because the BBC employs PromoVeritas Ltd (an independent verification service) to oversee the voting, in fact there is an interview with the guy who actually does it on Greytop's thread.

It is precisely because of this kind of scandal that the BBC now try to be whiter than white. SCD even got auditors KPMG in to carried out an independent analysis of the new scoring system. It is also why SCD no longer supports CIN every week.

After the BBC's incidents there was a huge review and no one would dare try to fix something these days.

But I think people are possibly misunderstanding a bit about this article.

I don't think Joe would have said anything negative about Craig because they were friends. The argument Joe had with the producers probably saw him sticking up for Craig over the way the judges were commenting on Craig's performances - remember the judges rarely said anything positive about Craig's dancing from the very start of the series.

I think Joe is saying he was eliminated from the show for sticking up for Craig and that is where his allegation of fixing comes from (which is just rubbish).

It covers the cost of running the vote - the BBC do not make a profit from the calls. This is the reason why calls for SCD are so cheap compared to ITV shows which make a profit on them.

[quote=Dancing Girl;36724112]Very good post. How true and sad in this day and age you cannot trust anyone!! I cannot vote as I do not live in England but I would refuse to vote if I felt the whole show was rigged. What has been the official excuse as to why they cannot produce the exact number of votes each celeb has received on X Factor and Strictly?? Does anyone know??????[/QUOTE]

Of course they can produce the exact number of votes - how else would they be able to say which celebs are in the DO or not? They choose not to publish the votes.

Now that is an interesting take on the article. I love a good conspiracy!

He said this: Mr Calzaghe, 37, declined to say what he had said to upset producers, simply insisting: 'I know it's down to something I said about Craig Kelly.

'It was worse than a swear word. They were really angry with me.

I assumed that he had said something negative about Craig but its not impossible to believe that the Mail have edited an entire conversation to push their anti BBC agenda.

Two points about vote disclosure on SCD -

1. The BBC has said it confirmed with the Information Commissioner that it is not obliged to disclose information about the public vote because it can be considered commercially sensitive information.

2. The BBC has said it doesn't disclose information about the public vote because it can influence for whom who someone might vote. I can see its point because for example, people might not bother voting at all if they knew someone was really far ahead every week. This is different for ITV because it makes money from the phone calls.

You see what I mean then?

Over to you Bernstein!!

Okay Woodward!

[quote=Lurksalot;36724214]It covers the cost of running the vote - the BBC do not make a profit from the calls. This is the reason why calls for SCD are so cheap compared to ITV shows which make a profit on them.


I've read elsewhere (and not just on this forum) that the BBC believes that it would influence the outcome of the vote from one week to the next. That's to say that if couple 'x' were seen to receive a massive vote in week one, then in week 2 people might assume they were safe and not bother voting for them. Likewise, a couple receiving a very low vote one week might receive an artificially high one the next. In that way, the voting itself would become a factor in future votes, rather than it being about voting for your favourite performance or to keep your favourite couple.

I'm not saying if I think it's right or wrong, just that I believe this to be the rationale they use for not publishing the voting numbers.

ETA I've just seen Lurksalot's post verifying that this is part of the reason
.

I cannot speak for the other companies involved but I was working for one of the tv companies mentioned above when the phone-in scandal broke. It was not caused by greed, dishonesty or a hidden agenda, but it was pure stupidity by certain members of the staff and a failure by management to check what was happening.
Last edited by Curly : 17-11-2009 at 14:48

Regardless of whether or not Calzaghe was a poor dancer (which IMO he was) there still could have been a fix.
It's about time these type of shows were independently investigated because there is a lot of smoke about both SCD and XF.
I wouldn't trust the Beebs execs as far as I could throw their expense sheets.

As BuddyB explained in post 55, they already are.

Sorry to burst your bubble - but there couldn't have been a fix. Not unless the BBC has a death-wish - and right now it's fighting to survive ... so that's hardly likely.

As Buddy has detailed, the voting on Strictly is independently verified. There is no investigation to hold and the smoke you refer to can only be a reference to not releasing the public's voting preferences, the reasons for which are clear.

Up to you to believe what you like regarding BBC execs - but all the facts would indicate that Strictly is not fixed.

I agree, the BBC may try to manipulate the viewers with biased VT edits and the judges may well collude but the public voting is not fixed.

I can't see Joe Calzaghe's argument. The fact that he stayed for five weeks is surely proof that there was no fix.
Unless the fix was an arrangement to inflate his public vote and keep him in at the expense of better competitors.

However...I was going to mention the Tuffers vote before, but don't like to stir up trouble and get almost the entire forum on my back. But as others have broken the ice, I might as well wade in.
I don't generally believe conspiracy theories, but it was very "convenient" for the BBC that Laila avoided the dance-off. That does make me suspicious, particularly if you take into account the supposedly leaked voting figures from three weeks ago. If those are true, Chris Hollins was the public favourite with Phil Tufnell his (quote) "only serious rival". Even allowing for the sympathy vote, it is difficult (but not impossible, I grant you) to believe that Laila suddenly polled more votes. Of course the "leak" could be complete rubbish, but it was quoted in a few "respectable" publications, not just the Star.
Another article from weeks ago also springs to mind. I'm always interested in the betting, so tend to look at sites like "Entertainmentodds" for guidance. You apparently can't cut and paste, but scroll down to their entry of October 20.." it's not impossible some contrivance could take place" etc. Remember, they have no interest who wins, they are just trying to predict the results..so no axe to grind.

http://www.entertainmentodds.com/

I don't think people are reading the article fully. Joe is quoted as saying -

"Don't you think it's odd we went out when we were in the bottom for four weeks and the public kept voting for us?
'We had the highest votes every week, the producers told us.

'Then all of a sudden we lost out in the judges' vote. Something was up."

Conveniently, he has forgotten the early weeks when Craig didnt have the highest votes and ended up in the dance off twice, but apart from that he is allying with Craig not speaking out against him.

I've racked my brain to think what "worse than a swear word" could mean, but obviously as the context of the article is Joe claiming the dance off was "fixed" we can only conclude it has legal implications.

I can't see how there wont be a case here. Either Joe suing the DM for misreporting, or the beeb suing Joe and the DM for libel. And if it is the latter, I guess we can say goodbye to Kristina.

The problem is that neither reason is a logical reason. Point 2 could be dealt with by revealing stats only after the end of the whole competition (as with X Factor). So far as point 1 is concerned, actual numbers might be commercially sensitive - for eg revealing that fewer and fewer people are voting over succeeding series. However, the usual way round this is to reveal percentages of the total vote to each contestant. That way the public gain reassurance but actual figures are withheld. Of course, if the real reason the votes are withheld even after the series is over, is that even percentages would reveal to what extent the judges vote is inverse to the public vote the reluctance to reveal this info is understandable and unforgivable! I wish someone would mount a FOI challenge to this practice.

There is no point. As Buddy states, the Information Commissioner has already confirmed that the BBC do not need to reveal the voting numbers.

Hilarious What is it with deluded celebs this series?
They may be C list but their egos are well and truly intact.

Gave me a laugh today anyway. Do hope we find out what Joe said about Craig!

The BBC makes nothing out of the phone calls (this was much discussed, with links, last year). Indeed, the BBC Editorial Guidelines prohibit them from profiting:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/edit...ing/code.shtml


I think you'll find find that the cost to the caller is less than it was when a proportion went to CiN.

But one thing obvious when Pop Idol/X Factor published their results is that votes vary massively from week to week. Most voters don't regularly vote for the same people. Phil could easily have had the most votes for dancing on his bad knee (about three weeks ago?) and then Laila had the most votes this week from the same floating voters. Plus Zoe going out will have changed the way people vote and reminded them that we were now down to few enough dancers for the ones at the top not to be safe any more.

Phil danced first when fewer people are watching - that really matters - and got praise from the judges. Plus that very leak will have made people think they didn't need to vote for him. I'm really sad that Phil's gone, and much as I like Ricky G too I expected the judges to save Phil. But Phil was very near the bottom of the leaderboard - it doesn't need a conspiracy to explain it.

I think they are both logical reasons, missfrankiecat, it's just that the current solution is not the only logical answer. Your alternative proposal makes excellent sense.