Also, looking at all the publicity Ann has got from not dancing, it could also encourage people to apply who think they would just be able to act the fool and do a comedy routine and they will get the headlines, rather than those who work hard to get their routines perfect. If and when SCD comes back we may see from the type of celebs who have been selected what direction this show is going.

If you take judges' mark as proof of anything then you're trousered - Ann's tango mark was due to Len being in a good mood and giving it a 7 mark it didn't deserve. Chris messed a couple of dances up pretty badly but wasn't anywhere near Ann's 'standard' when it came to being bad.

Unfair comparison I think. Kenny's dancing might not have been good, but what he did was at least dancing, unlike both JS & AW.

I love that .... "anywhere near Ann's standard when it came to being bad"!

I wonder if he wanted to add "and working hard" to his comment this morning that he would prefer the winner to be decided based on dancing.

He can get away with implying Ann can't dance, but he'd be in big bother with the Big Cheeses if he implied she wasn't working hard, I suspect.

I suspect you might be right.

I dont think its cheating as such for Anton to use a PR company......He had a problem with his image last series and obviously felt he needed some PR help. I wouldnt even know about it except they are the company that also represent another celebrity I am interested in and I follow the company on twitter and they tweet things most days about this or that paper or magazine wanting a story about Anton du Beke. They are just doing the job they are paid for......and they are careful to say Anton not Ann....but obviously the only story they can print about Anton at the moment involves Ann.

You can't say that what John Sergeant did wasn't dancing. There were daft moments, such as dragging Kristina across the floor, but in every routine he attempted the proper steps, and at times did it reasonably well.

No one applies - they're invited by the beeb.

How do people know that Ann isn't trying her hardest? I get the impression that she's having the time of her life and is taking the show very seriously indeed. It's just that she's a completely "unphysical" person unsuited to athletic activities like dancing She knows she's a very poor dancer unlikely to make much progress so she's mentally defending herself by focusing on the comedy side of things. Trying to laugh at herself first before anyone else gets the chance. So it's not as if she isn't trying, it's just that she's a really shit dancer trying to compensate for it with a self-deprecatory attitude.

She refuses point blank to do some of the latin moves as apparently they are too saucy or something. She kind of admitted she can't be bothered with a lot of them. I believe she is trying on the ballroom side but the latin side - no I'm not and on SCD it's about both disaplines.

Having the time of one's life does not always indicate effort. - she rarely looks tired and certainly doesn't demonstrate the exhaustion suffered by many of the others. For an 'unphysical' person that surely speaks volumes.

Didn't Felicity say pretty much the same thing on ITT when she left?

But wasn't chris dancing with Ola?

Judges, celebs, pro dancers, audience, they all have personal favourites and inconsistencies, and there is not a court of appeal. Only King Solomon and the archangel Gabriel are capable of fair verdicts.

James was upset when he thought John Sergeant caused the eviction of his favourite Cherie. The acid test of James' fairness would come if Chris and Ola dancing a pleasing charleston evicted James and Cherie dancing a rumba. Horses for courses: Chris could never have done Cherie's rumba, Cherie could never have done Chris's charleston.

As to whether Ann did or did not Strictly Come Dancing, while keeping a wary eye on the Trade Description Act I would say Ann is well paid to trigger BBC standing ovations, including the tour perhaps paid more than £200K. The audience perform like seals without even a fish as reward.

I still think James is a bit of a hypocrite.

It's all very well saying it was ok for Chris & Ola to win because they were trying hard and were entertaining, but John Sergeant tried hard and many found him entertaining too. But that year it was all about the dancing for James. He likes to think he's 'honest' but I say he's 'inconsistent.' He shifts the goal posts to suit him.

When does it become acceptable to support the lesser dancer? When they are scoring 4's, 5's, 6's, what? Because there was a spell when Chris & Ola's were getting precisely those sorts of scores but support for them remained strong.

I think that as the number of couples lessens, and crunch time approaches for James & Pamela, he's decided to play the 'it's all about the dancing' card. I'm half hoping Ann & Anton outlast him now.

Agree with this 100% Sid xxx

Cheers tq! Don't think there will be many others who do, not that I care

x x x

I take it your omission of Sepp Blatter from this list is purely accidental.

To be fair though, he is human like all of us. One year we are supporting someone because they are entertaining us, and we don't support the good dancers because of lack of personality, smugness, or any other vague reason. In the following year, we support the best dancer and think the one with personality should be stoned and driven out of the competition.

We all do it, and to be fair on James, he did not say that Anne should leave, but that their success is due to Anton (which is true). Any kind of entertainment comes from Anton's ability to choreograph comedy routines.

In my mind, effort is important, the really good dancers put in effort, sometimes less good dancers put in effort, Anne doesn't and John Sergeant didn't either (we saw him sit down and drink tea a lot). Effort cannot be measured by scores but by the amount of time and sweat celebrities put into their routines.

Edit: John Sergeant put in a lot more effort than Anne, but towards the end, he was just getting boring IMO.

nor me, Sid! xxx

With regards to the bit in bold, I don't think we all do that. I've always maintained that whoever the audience wants to support (regardless of how good their dancing is and regardless of whether I'm a fan or not)) deserves to go through - whether it be John Sergeant, Chris Hollins, Ann Widdecombe - whoever.

I also appreciate that what viewers find entertaining is subjective. Some people loved watching Chris & Ola (like me), others found them irritating as hell. The same goes for Ann & Anton. So if it's acceptable to support one and watch them progress, then it should be acceptable for the other, since neither were the strongest dancers but both entertained a lot of people.

I also disagree with James that Anton is solely responsible for his and Ann's popularity. He's been extremely clever and creative putting together their routines, but it's the rapport between this couple, and Ann's no nonsense approach and seeing how she copes with the dancers that a lot of viewers find interesting (in my opinion). It's a team effort.

I don' t blame him for being inconsistent where his wife was involved. Wouldn't any decent husband want his wife to win?

I'm sure James is no saint, but I admire what he said this morning. It was echoing what a lot of fairly reasonable people seem to think and so in my view it was worth saying, particularly as we are hearing rather a lot of bumph to the contrary. In the media.

Agree totally with this,

I like to think I'm fairly reasonable but I don't agree with James

As for wanting his wife to win, that's more that understandable. But he should apply the same rules to other couples. Otherwise his loyalty to Ola is overshadowed by his hypocrisy in my eyes.