Not if you are referring to dancing ability.

...and I've said it before and I'll say it again that the majority of people who bothered to vote clearly thought otherwise

Oh, and what's that got to do with the Sun article anyway?

Maybe the suggestion is that people who read the Sun would have been more likely to vote for Tom Chambers.

His best ballroom got 39/40, his best latin 38/40, he only scored under 30 once that I can think of.

So if you don't like someone you feel it's okay to insult those who vote for them?

That's the sort of suggestion that I'd expect a Sun reader to make tbh and wasn't that papers enthusiasm all tied up in JS? the guy who could barely put two steps together?

Rachel could've participated in any series and she would never have won. She couldn't get the public vote.

It doesn't read as tongue in cheek. And it contains direct quotes from Tom, so it's not the usual tabloid trick of citing an unnamed "source", "pal" or "insider".

Also, doesn't most of it, at least, ring true?

"The producers would say if you look grumpy in the background 'People might vote you off for looking like you're not loving it all as much as you should'.

"Everyone on Strictly pretends to be friends, but we're all really competitive.

"Bruce is actually a better presenter off-camera than on. He spends all his time concentrating on the script on the autocue rather than being natural.

"Craig Revel Horwood just puts on an act. He's really lovely in real life, ...

"I realised the kind of dancing I was used to was jazz and tap. On Strictly it's totally different and I really had to work."

And that lends credibility to the rest, to the parts people seem to be questioning.


He says "every time I see her, I just think of her as that robot," and then ads ""She's lovely, but she's like some kind of presenting robot." So it does seem to be his opinion, even if it was inspired by a sketch.

Seconded.

PS: Is Tom married yet?

When someone insists on reading something like this 'article' literally, despite the blindingly obvious contextual 'disparency' I really have to wonder what the motivation is to do so.

I can't help but laugh at some of the comments left by those Sun readers – what's scary is that it wouldn't surprise me if they are real people and not stooges, lol.

As we know Rupert Murdoch is always having a go at the BBC and sadly people read these articles and take them as being true. Tom Chambers career didn't get the boost he mayby hoped it would by appearing on SCD, so when is a good time to get some publicity wether the article is completely true or not, when Strictly is on TV again!

As much as she was my favourite of that particular series, her showdance wasn't good enough to clinch the title. Tom's was far more superior.

I don't really believe the showdance had anything to do with the winning/losing. From what i understand, Tom was already ahead in the voting anyway.

Oh no I didnt like him, but he certainly wasnt the best dancer.
There were at least 3 better dancers than him in his own series.

Well if Tom was pretending not be a good a dancer as he really is then he must have been pretending the whole way through as I thought he was quite lucky to get through in a number of weeks or wasn't anywhere near as good as what the judges said he was.

People took to him because they liked him on a personal level and he did seem the underdog a lot.

Its occurred to me that actors inc Scott must have had dance training a spart of their training to be actors, its a pre requisite as part of their training in a lot of acting schools, so thats why they are "better" not because of better natuaral talent.

I've said before I think Rachel lost weeks before the final, probably around the time of her jive.


We know for a fact Tom won the semi-final because they announced it that night.

I think Tom, Austin and Rachel were all of similar ability and that should've been the final. It would've been a cracker. In terms of marks I'm not sure there's much between them either.

As much as Rachel was my favourite, at times some of her dancing altough technically proficient did look like a rabbit caught in the headlights at times where performance was concerned. The public don't warm to that approach so that is why she sadly came 2nd. To win SCD you have to hold the audience together of which Rachel didn't do either.

In Rachel's earlier stages she did look like a rabbit in the headlights,particularly with Latin, until her rumba number came up, then she started to show more purpose and determination.

The public do seem to latch onto with what they are like in the earlier stages. Must admit even though I was a fan of Rachel that particular series I wasn't impressed with some of her latin dances earlier in the competition. From rumba onwards she started to get it together more and blossomed as a result.

As for Tom it was probably his fans from Holby City who campaigned for him to win aswell as fans of that particular programme. Also in the QS he did his Fred Astaire stunt and from there onwards he was very much in winning mode.

His showdance was a belter and if scored would have had 40/40, Rachel probably 36/40 and that was the difference between them. Toms personality was definately showier and that was what defined his victory.

It depends what training they had, also, just because they had training doesn't mean they were good at it.

If you disliked Tom Chambers on the series you'll be more likely to think this article has definite truth in it.

If you liked him you'll be more likely to think he was either misquoted or taken out of context.

And if you claim to be totally impartial I won't believe you .

Ha ha,well said! Put me in the second category please.

I liked him in the series (never liked Camilla though) but I didn't think he was the right winner, thought the showdance was actually quite sloppy in execution, and I've pretty much gone off him completely since then. So I can be in both categories I guess!

I think it's true because I've never bought all this matey-matey stuff backstage, and also because the producers are muppets if they aren't advising their star celebs how to keep in with the public. And if the producers aren't advising them, I'd bet the pro dancers are. The pros want to stay in, and they can see what works with the public.

Love his comments on the tour though. I'm sure that's not a reaction to Rachel wiping the floor with him.

Nah, you've just moved categories so my point still applies .

Hmm... I think the article rings true but I don't see anything wrong with what he said. He associates Tess with a sketch he once saw of her - that's not a big deal. The producers tell people to smile - of course they do! Craig is lovely off-camera - anyone who's ever seen him sing on ITT could never take the Simon Cowell act seriously.

The only parts that don't ring true are the interpretation the Sun put on the quotes.