From Press Association today:

Patsy Kensit is set to compete on the next series of Strictly Come Dancing, according to reports...TV presenter Matthew Wright is definitely on board, according to the newspaper, while other names who have been approached include Girls Aloud's Kimberley Walsh, Richard Madeley, and former GMTV presenters Penny Smith and Ben Shephard.

Apparently Brucie says he wants big names this year or he is off!

Kimberley Walsh and Richard Madeley have both confirmed they're NOT doing the show. Ben Shephard is illegible because of his dancing background I think..

The 'reports' have come from the Mirror, so take them with a very large pinch of salt - they also think Nicole Scherzinger is doing the show this year

Same s**t, different year!

JJ

These reports from the mirror just go to show how dumb the newspapers really are..... How could you realistically allow someone who has won the show in the USA, had all the training for almost all the dances and been through the whole shebang compete against rank beginners ..... a 5 year old could have worked that one out.... but most 5 year olds are probably smarter than your average Mirror hack

So true, my favourite though is the News of the world who on 3 different Sundays have exclusively revealed that Pamela Anderson,Nicole Scherzinger and Kelly Osbourne[all 3 appeared on the US version] are all appearing on SCD.

It was basically the same article every week but with a different name.

The problem with these reports are that some people on here believe that nonsense and start a thread about it..... This is exactly what happened with last years ageist debate, it seemed to start from one wizened old female hack with no chance of a tv career, taking out her frustration and accusing the BBC of ageism, before you know it the sheep on the internet picked it up and ran with it for months, many even convinced themselves that ageism was rife, it is a bad day when someone younger than another should be attacked for taking a job that was once held be an older person. It's the way things happen in everyday life, eventually all of us in a job will eventually be replaced by a younger person, but you couldn't accuse your employer of ageism if you were over 65 in the real world, retirement age etc etc.

why would that make him illegible?

Whilst I agree with some of what you say....I think in the real world you WOULD complain if you were forced to retire (not gone of your own choice) and your job was given to someone who didnt have one 10th of the qualifications for the job that you had.....and was given the job only because they were young and attractive......in the case of Alesha replacing Arlene can you give me another reason why she was given the job

I would imagine she was given the job because she brought a different perspective to the panel, None of the judges could possible know what it is like to compete and win the series, she walked the walk and won it,That is a qualification that none of the others can claim regardless of how much experience they have in other forms of dancing. The whole young and attractive issue is just an excuse, it is not her fault she is young and attractive. Interesting though that since Arlene was replaced she has appeared on SYTYCD on BBC1 and now on loose women.... so much for ageism at the BBC. It is also noticable that she has made a determined effort to make her self look younger

I heard a whisper today that if they split up Ronan Keating's wife may pop up .....

Patsy Kensit ? I thought the Beeb were looking for big stars this year ? I can get cracking now on Brucie's lame jokes if he wants me to.

I'd say who ever wrote that report has been reading monkseal's World Cup Of Strictly 2010, as we were just discussing those celebs yesterday!

The Pre-Qualifying Round ends tonight, so get in there quickly with your choices - not as easy as it sounds if like me, you've watched from the start!

But the judges are not there to 'understand how it feels to take part' they are there to judge the dancing which she is plainly not qualified to do. For what its worth I have never thought that it was anything to do with age, Arlene crossed the line on several occasions with her remarks away from the judgeing table (but she wasnt the only one and all the judges should have been admonished for their behaviour during series 6) so I actually have no problem with judges being replaced but they should be replaced with people who actually have the qualifications to judge dancing. Alesha knows she doesnt have those qualifications and shouldnt have accepted the job in my view.

And are they necessarily two discrete things? Not all the judges have to be there to judge the quality of the dancing in black and white - she's there to judge it based on her own experience of how nerve-wracking it is and how difficult it is to learn to dance in such a short space of time. It doesn't mean she's not judging the dancing, but she isn't there to judge it based on whether or not the technique is completely precise - Len can do that! How boring would it be if all 4 judges were looking for exactly the same thing - there's a reason the Dancing on ice panel are so varied in that way too!

I've said it several times, but there is no black and white list of criteria to be a judge on Strictly - they all bring different things to the panel. If you didn't have that you might as well have judges who judge at Blackpool, because then all you're doing is making it a purely dancing competition when it is dancing coupled with being a Saturday night entertainment show. The judges recognise that, the dancers recognise that - so where is the problem with Alesha being a judge? I'm not going to pretend I wouldn't prefer Karen, but that's as a replacement for Bruno first, not Alesha.

And you really think she shouldn't have accepted the job - would you have turned financial security down? It's not her fault she was picked!

It should be remembered that SYTYCD is very much Nigel Lythgoe's "baby", and he only agreed for it to be brought to UK on certain - and knowing Nigel, probably very strict - terms, one almost undoubtedly being the right to choose the judges. He and Arlene go back many many years; not just as because of dancing, but as friends. And Loose Women - isn't that ITV?

I watched Loose Women this week because I heard Arlene was on and tbh it was probably one the worst Loose Women shows I've seen. Arlene doesn't have the knack for bantering that panellists need on the show. I really can't see her lasting long as a panellist. I'm no fan of Arlene, but I am speaking honestly rather than someone who is biased, as I had hoped she would be good. After seeing her on LW, I did wonder if the only reason she got the offer was so ITV could have a dig at the BBC.

Exactly !!! Can you imagine of it was a panel of professional ballroom judges.... how boring would that be.... I kind of liken it to that programme " Faking it" That's all you could expect given the time and training involved, that the celebs learn how to "Fake it" to look like a ballroom dancer.... To be of professional standard take years of practice, not 16 weeks. So it is unfair to expect the celebs to be judged to the same standards as legitimate competitions, that is why, with the exception of Len, None of the panel have any qualifications in ballroom or latin

I know - I bet they're planning to pair Nicole with Anton?

Nicole cant possibly be on strictly she just won the last series of dancing with the stars.......unless the BBC have completely lost the plot and think that viewers wouldnt know this........she has just had 3 months of ballroom and latin training with Derek Hough which would be more unfair than the usual 'dancing background' we have to deal with. Afterall Ali has been employed as a 'professional' dancer after 3 months with Karen Hardy.

Jan.... I was joking

oops obviously got my too serious head on today

I would LOVE it if the panel were officially licensed Ballroom/Latin adjudicators, because they would all actually know what they're talking about!

No experienced adjudicator would expect the celebrities to reach a 'professional standard' in 16 weeks. But after many years of dancing and teaching they would know what standard to expect in that time, unlike any stage show choreographer, ballet dancer or singer!

The Great British public vote for their favourites, for whatever reason they choose, and that is what makes the programme.

And this is exactly why we dont need experienced adjudicators, it's pantomime

I agree with what you say; apparently before the first series went out a great number of professional ballroom judges were tried out as judges, but none were deemed suitable for a lighthearted entertainment show based on dancing. Although Len is deadly serious about dancing, he does have a sense of fun - as anyone who has ever been to one of his competitions will tell you.

However, I do think that ALL the judges should be qualified in some form of dance, as Arlene, Bruno & Craig are. Craig, incidentally, although known as a stage choreographer, started out with ballroom and Latin in Australia, so knows more than he is sometimes given credit for.

Interesting discussion because I can see both sides of the argument.

On the one hand, I do agree that the standards applied in strictly have to have some amount of compromise. In the early days of dancing, footwork is everything,especially in a dance like the foxtrot where people are exceptionally obsessive about it. It would undoubtably be dull for the audience if there were never ending comments about whether something should have been a heel/toe, toe/heel or just toe, or endless discussions about the technicalities of no foot rise. There does have to be a wow factor to attract the audience and that means, for example, trying to mimic the ballroom hold of an experienced competitor even if it isn't quite right (e.g. not fully self supporting etc,).

However, you do want a bit of credibility in the panel. And an experienced adjudicator should still be able to recognise these differences in standards and apply them. The judges in Dancing on Ice are in a similar predicament but there is more of an emphasis on technical skills in that panel, with less flamboyant characters and it works.

Generally I don't think you would want 4 ballroom experts, but having only 1 is a bit on the light side, I can't agree that there is noone suitable and every adjudicator is too dull a personality. Maybe at the start of Strictly, no suitable candidates auditioned because they thought it was too gimmicky.

When it comes to choosing judges, quoting the '16 week' aspect is a bit of a problem for me.

The 16 weeks that the celebs go through is hardly like 16 weeks anyone else would experience. It is an intense training time to teach celebs how do do the required routines for that week. I can't see how that can be compared to any other training programme around.

Although it is not why I mention the 16 week aspect, If anything that does give some credibility to why Alesha isn't a bad choice as a judge.