I love him! and at least he moves around the dancefloor - unlike others I wont mention

Because he is a BBC guy and they like the BBC people to be in right to the end. No marks with zero charisma like Baker, Hollins and Chambers have been pushed through in previous series. Savage is the guy this year.

Robbie survives because he has effectively become Russell-ie someone to provide some dazzle and humour. I think we all knew Anita was in danger tonight and if Robbie dances well next week either Holly or Alex could go.

On a wider note, SCD has taken a few pointers from X Factor over the last few years,bigger and bolder to the extent that its actually the bigger show at the moment. X Factor has never really been a singing competition in a serious sense, and SCD has become a bit more entertainment and a little less serious dance. Personally I dont think its suffered as a result.

Had never heard of him before as not a football fan. He may not be greatest dancer but I have really warmed to him- he seems such a nice guy and really likes dancing /being part of it
In terms of ability he and Alex are maybe less talented remaining contestants?

Newsflash: Zoe Lucker didn't lose out to Chris Hollins - Chris was never in the dance-off. Zoe lost out to judges' pet Ali Bastian, who was capable in ballroom but struggled in latin.

And I'd fully expect Robbie outlasting Holly, who clearly doesn't have the public vote - hence her landing in the dance-off last night even when she had significantly higher scores from the judges and Robbie was bottom of the leaderboard.

Robbie has one thing all the other contestants lack: a character. He's a bad boy-turned-joker and, now that Russell has gone, the BBC will make the most of that. He also appears popular with the public - popular enough to make the final ...?

Sorry, but the facts don't qiute back up your argument ...

Robbie Savage isn't 'a BBC guy'. If this was Huw Edwards we were talking about, your case might have some merit - but it isn't. How and why exactly is Robbie 'a BBC guy' more than Alex Jones?

So Matt, Chris and Tom all had no marks with zero charisma? Hardly. They all needed charisma to get them as far as they did in the competition, along with improving in their dancing. Robbie has more charisma than many of the other remaining contestants, and certainly more than Holly - otherwise she wouldn't have ended up in the dance-off again. The fact that his dancing appears to have plateau'd out does not seem relevant.

I suspect you will find the producers are extremely frustrated by Robbie's durability - particularly when it's obvious from the latest editions of Radio Times that they expected Russell Grant to outlast him. So I'd say it's much more likely that he is definitely not 'the BBC guy' and the judges will get ever more critical as long as he continues surviving ...

BIB: FIIrst off, there is no dance-off in this series. Was it not a olished a couple of series ago this dance-off malarky? Also, I won't sau Robbie has a lot of charisma, unless you refer to charisma as being a girl's blouse as being one. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Robbie (this word has been thrown around like a wet haddock ) but I do find his dancing, esp. his latin ones, very tedious now.

I dont think Ola was to pleased at where he placed his hand neither

Well, charisma has been defined as 'compelling attractiveness or charm'. Charisma, like beauty must be in the eye of the beholder because in my eyes he is neither attractive or charming. Being able to spot him at 50 metres due to his teeth doesn't equate as attractiveness in my book. Vanity, yes.

My OH and I really like Robbie. He's clearly throw himself into Strictly and is enjoying every moment. He seems very likeable, too, not taking himself too seriously. He'll probably be out next week or the one after, but he's made us laugh on several occasions – as did Russell. We're really enjoying this series.

With many hours of dancing and training with amateurs like him, I can't see it being the first time that it has happened by accident.

Same here.

Twice. What a sleazy git.

Next to the other contestants, Robbie oozes personality. Whether you like it or not. I don't particularly, but I completely get why he's still there. So many of the others remaining come just across as bland - and, in a genre that thrives on character, he has an advantage. So he's vain? So was Gavin Henson and he did pretty well considering he wasn't much cop at dancing.

I don't dispute his latin is weak. I don't think he's a great dancer full stop. But I'd be surprised if he didn't see off Holly - at least ...

Savage like Jones is employed by the BBC and they have a habit of getting their people as far as they can. This is done to gain some popularity and give them extra TV work later.

Baker, Chambers and Hollins are just people who do as they are told. The way they behaved was not at all natural they acted as they were ordered and of course there are ways of manipulating the public. Baker and Hollins are both particularly dire in all the TV shows since that they have been inflicted on the British Public, Baker is extremely wooden in a very dim sounding part-Goerdie accent and Hollins so smarmy and big-headed, with to be fair not that much to be big-headed about.

Expect Savage to go for a while longer and then be on TV afterwards quite a lot.

With the greatest respect, your interpretation of how the BBC employs people is a little simplistic.

People at the BBC work on contracts. There are a few who count as full-time staff but they are in a minority. And the BBC has no obligation to any contract staff.

Just because Robbie Savage has done some work for the BBC doesn't mean he's more likely to be promoted over any other contestant. If you follow your own argument, Chelsee and Alex should be getting special treatment from the producers because they appear in BBC shows ... but they aren't. It's Harry the judges are falling over themselves to big up.

And was Anne Widdicombe 'a BBC person'? Of course not, but it didn't stop the producers using every trick in the book to hype her to the heavens at every opportunity. So your argument looks a bit thin ...

As for people doing as they are told: er, hello? EVERYONE who appears on Strictly does as they are told. If you really think otherwise, you are very much mistaken. Like every other reality show, SCD is scripted - more heavily so than ever this year - and the celebs play along with that. It's in their contracts to do so.

That's showbusiness ...

If you don't like certain contestants and feel aggrieved at their success, fine. But at least get your facts right ...

They both laughed it off along with the others in the Tessanine from what I saw

I never said anything about working full-time, Savage works for the BBC and like Baker and Hollins before him it would be a surprise to me if they were not planning to use him on various TV shows in the future. Jones already fairly high profile, expect more roles for her.

Of course they all do as they are told, some take this more seriously than others, particularly the BBC staff.

The BBC have various ambitions each year.

1 Maximum viewing figures.
2. Promoting their own and gaining them popularity then using this to gain viewers in future shows.
3. Taking a punt on outsiders who might in future do the same as 2.

Servalan has put it admirably already, but I would just reinforce that being a regular on a BBC show isn't a guarantee of progression. Or if it is, Gillian Taylforth, Goldie and Phil Daniels ought to get a rebate

Until Sunday, I would have thought Robbie would be a reasonably certain bet for the bottom two this week. But after his very public display of bravery and emotion following the death of his friend Gary Speed, I suspect a sympathy vote will be forthcoming to keep him in for another week, in the spirit of 'don't kick him when he's down'.

I should add that I am not suggesting in any way that Robbie's actions over the last 36 hours have been a deliberate attempt to boost his profile on the back of his friend's death. But like it or not, the SCD vote will be a side-effect of the way he felt he should behave. Which, I suppose, is fine in one context - if people feel that his actions make him worth voting for then fine. I just wish that I felt he deserved to stay over Alex or Holly based solely on his dancing.

I agree with you. It's obvious to me that the BBC push their own and want them to do well. It's blatant with Alex, who has been overmarked from the start. I think they want to raise Robbie's profile too, so you could be right that they will use him in something else. None of this is anything new. It's been the same from day 1 when they forced Natasha Kaplinsky to take part, despite her really not wanting to do so. And she is on record as saying that.

Robbie Savage has a show on Radio 5 Live. Hardly a major player in the BBC, really.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to make out this is some kind of Daily Mail-esque outrage. Hardly. Even if it's as cynical as you make out - which I don't think it was in Chris Hollins' case, as the producers were very obviously desperate for him NOT to win - it's not really a big deal. It's certainly a damn sight better than ITV shamelessly recycling acts from one reality show in another.

Unless you have some axe to grind with the BBC?

I have to add that your theory doesn't hold much water at all. If it was true that the BBC 'roadtested' certain celebs with a view to using them again at a future date, how come Austin Healy, Gethin Jones, Lisa Snowdon and Emma Bunton have all got work elsewhere, instead of at the BBC?

Again, please get your facts right. What is 'their own'? The theory is like something out of the Daily Heil, rather than reality - and we all know how much they like the BBC ...

As for overmarking - pur-lease. It's rife throughout the competition this year and Alex certainly isn't the only one to have benefitted from it ...

I class their own as working on a BBC show at the present time.

Yes, overmarking has taken place throughout this series but to me it's more blatant with Alex and never more so than in the swingathon, which they used IMO to bump her up the board one place.

What has the Daily Mail got to do with anything I have nothing against the BBC other than them going downmarket with having such limited presenters like Baker and Hollins.

Again this show is used to test whether the contestants are popular and can be used in the future. Of course not every one will pass the test.

Of course Hollins was pushed forward and has since been given other roles, not that he is very good at any of them.

I think it's conceivable that contestants are chosen in order for the BBC to up the profile of presenters on its own shows (and therefore its own shows). But just as likely that they include presenters on their own shows because they can more easily twist their arm to do it.

I think it's conceivable that the judges overmark certain contestants deliberately. But I think it's laughable that they're under pressure to overmark BBC presenters. More likely they overmark to redress a perceived imbalance when the poorer dancers become popular with the public.

There's no BBC agenda conspiracy theory here and I find it ludicrous that anyone could actually give it credence.