Agreed..on reflection, your analysis of the voting makes perfect sense.
I don't think there was much between Chris, Phil, Laila and Natalie..at their best. Even Ricky G performed out of his skin on Saturday. So, I don't think there was any great "injustice". Given the circumstances, I would have kept everyone in the competition (Laila would presumably have been unable to perform in the dance-off, so that would have been meaningless) but that's a different argument.

The courts are not bound by the IC's advice.

Just a thought. I can see why they don't publish figures during the competition. Last year, after the fiasco when Tom should have gone, they announced Tom, Rachel and Lisa's votes - as soon as they did that the final was a foregone conclusion, and a real anticlimax.

So, what they ought to do, at the end of the series when it's all over, is publish the number of votes cast each week. We can the see how things shifted. Would be interesting to see the public vote move (if it does) and also how close it is given the short voting time.
Last edited by Ceroc-ker : 17-11-2009 at 17:05

Maybe people or organisations have better and more important things to do with their time & money than to progress legal challenges regarding an entertainment programme on TV.

And maybe the courts have as well.

I agree.

I wonder how many of the posters on here that defend the Beeb and send in sickly praises of Claude actually work for the Beeb.
This baloney that the Beeb would never fiddle results is a load of bull. Leopards and spots come to mind.
They don't need to give actual vote numbers from the public,
just give out the order they were voted in.
The clouds of secrecy often cover up wrongdoing.

Does your cynicism know no bounds?!

I work in the television industry and have worked for the BBC several times - but have no loyalty to it whatsoever. However, I do know how it works from first hand experience and I can assure you that there is no way they would fiddle results after all the very public scandals about vote- and competition-rigging. And least of all on their flagship entertainment show. It would destroy Strictly and damage the BBC's reputation beyond belief. So while the Daily Mail may aspire to this, I hardly think it's likely the BBC would do so itself, however stupid its executives might appear at times.

I don't see why the results can't be published once the competition is over - a la TXF - but that is one for SCD producers.

As others have said, the producers clearly use the judges and VT clips to shamelessly try and influence the public vote - but that is not the same as 'fiddling' the public vote. And, in any case, as we all know, the public tends to have its own opinion ...

Ah, the joys of a conspiracy theory. When in doubt, ignore any reasonable explanation and accuse people of working for the BBC.

The Beeb is a previous multi offender in the vote rigging stakes so why do you shout conspiracy if anyone accuses them of being on the fiddle?
Next you'll be saying they don't fiddle their expense sheets.

It's precisely because of previous offences that this would never happen again, least of all on a show as high profile as Strictly. People lost their jobs and the BBC's reputation was damaged very publicly - so why would any incentive to 'fiddle the public votes' outweigh that?

Or do you just believe anything you read in the Daily Heil?

Your choice, of course, but you may find posters taking issue with you when you can't back up your argument ...

hiawatha? Shouldn't that be SKYawatha?

However imperfect the Beeb is, it's twenty times more beneficial to this country and its culture than any product of that anti-British, republican Aussie-turned-Yank's stable.

Abso-bloody-lutely!

None of those are fixes. That people were still phoning does not make it a fix.

There was a Blue Peter one that was a fix, iirc. I think it was about picking a name for a cat, or something like that, and the show didn't use the name that was actually the most popular.


So when has any major UK reality show ever rigged a vote?


Nonsense. Not knowing the totals has very little to do with whether we'll ever find out, and there's a lot more oversight of the voting in a show like SCD than there was for something like a pet name poll on Blue Peter.

Why would people be reassured by percentages?

I mean, why would anyone who thinks that withholding the vote totals might mean there's a fix be satisfied by mere percentages?

One thing we know from Big Brother is that people still want to know the totals even when they know percentages.

BTW, are you trying to imply that the judges' marks are based on the public vote (with the aim of reversing it), rather than on the dances?

I don't know if missfrankiecat was implying that - but, from the figures that were leaked last year, I think you could suggest that the judges do mark to counteract the public vote (and I'm thinking of Lisa Snowdon's mediocre but overmarked jive here ...).

But it's all in the eye of the beholder ...

What Joe said re Laila could easily have been distorted by the Mail, since iirc from the other thread, the paper quoted only one word directly ("scared").

But I don't think there is any plausible "context" that would make enough difference re what Joe was quoted to gave said about his own exit.

Your suggestion that Joe might have morphed into someone who would have said all that sarcastically is an example of an implausible one.


I don't think the BBC can sue for libel. I could be wrong here, but I think there have to be particular individuals who were libelled.

Are you suggesting that the judges knew the figures for that week before they awarded their scores? How's that work? Time travel?

(As others have pointed out, the it's likely that the public vote often changes substantially from week to week.)

It's exactly as Servalan posted, and because, even now, with all of the posts behind us, you still refuse to accept that conditions have changed and that the guidelines are tighter than ever.

So yes, conspiracy theories seem to rule the day, and the beauty (?) of a conspiracy theory is that the more evidence is supplied to counter it, the more that people state valid reasons as to why it cannot happen again, the more convinced that some become that the theory is true.

No ...

I have to take issue with the suggestion that the public vote often changes substantially from week to week. I'm sure it does in some cases but it was very clear last year that two contestants the judges favoured were not well liked by the public - otherwise why would Lisa and Rachel have ended up in the dance-off repeatedly?

Therefore the producers and the judges would be aware of this and would be able to overscore Lisa, the less consistent of their favourites (especially in Latin), to ensure she'd stay in.

Like I say, up to you whether or not you believe this, but their overall rating was reflected in the voting figures leaked to the press ...

Especially if you read The Daily Heil or The Sun ...

I don't believe SCD is fixed in the sense of an absolute fix, but I think the key word here is MANIPULATED. I do think that is in play sadly, certainly since series4, to keep public unfavourites in longer, or in the case of Rachel and Lisa all the way to the final where in the old days of pre Dance Off they would have been given their marching orders.

Unfortunately, since Bunton who was in the bottom 2 twice before the public chose Matt over her for the final, which must have rankled with the judges, the over riding priority seems to be to protect certain 'types' who don't get as many votes ie, good looking girls and perceivedly overmarked to boot. I suppose somebody will leap up and protest 'what about Alesha' but nobody can actually prove that she might have not polled less than Letitia Dean that week....

Of course she did go through first to the final the following week, so it's clear that she did pick up more votes then, but then she was only one of the last 3, she was first on the judges leaderboard with the lead and we'll never never know...though by now, with this current series looking like 2012, I'm past caring about results.

He is a boxer? He never mentioned it.

I never have worked for the BBC and I don't know anyone who has.

I don't believe that there is a fix on the public voting. Why would they risk it, what have they got to gain? the BBC don't gain anything from the vote.

Rigging the public vote so that Joe would go out over Craig - err why?

What a moron, it's just sour grapes because he's bitter about leaving, but how can he really think he should have got further?
It really makes me angry that he has gone and told the press that Strictly is fixed- the BBC get enough flak from the papers as it is, they really don't need this.