There is yet another nasty story in the press implying nonsense afoot with contestants and pro dancers. There was a story earlier this year about a pro dancer having "late night chats." with a celeb. It seems pointless and vicious.
We now know what depths papers go to to get stories and extent to which they make stuff up so how can they keep printing this stuff?
And no I don't buy these papers!

The Daily Mail appear to be the main offenders. They are finding it impossible to write anything positive about anyone these days. The so called journalists there are a bunch of miserable vitriolic old has beens as far as I can see.

They seem to realise it is a simple case of a crowd crashing down in a someone's hotel room. They are trying to get the best of both worlds, not make any claims of anything going on in case anyone sues them but still report the story. Like the Monty Python Nudge, Nudge sketch.

I have heard reports that some male and female staff at the Daily Mail share the same offices, I am sure nothing goes on when the door is closed but ........

....and they often leave a few minutes apart! I'm sure it's just a co-incidence but...

oooh havent read it......rushes off to try and find it though now that you have highlighted it !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...l-bedroom.html

Yuk. I'll have to go and wash after having opened that link (my own fault for looking, of course). There's pond scum, the stuff that's nastier than pond scum, and then there's the Daily Mail. If even its readers are posting comments criticisng them for this article then maybe they'll realise, for once, that they've overstepped the mark.

Off to watch the Daily Mail Song on YouTube to get over it...

Oh yes, very sensitive DM. Publish a desperate s**t-stirring toilet paper story the day after a bloke's mate dies suddenly.

Shame if its true I would have thought Natalie had more taste than that.

There are lots of comments along those lines in the Mail, a really bad bit of timing on their part.

Point is the press have neglected to include ALL the other people who also stayed in his room that night. Therefore deliberately skewing things in a lascivious way.

I just wish the newspapers would investigate each other's editors and management as enthusiastically as they do to other people but there seems to be a unwritten rule that they do not do so.

One of the blogs referred to a story about one editor and his mistress that another newspaper was threatening to publish if he published something about them.

This question is not because I dont believe you....just out of interest really.....how do you know there were other people there ?

It is the Daily Mail - Sorry but for lazy sensationalist journalism they do take the biscuit. Their own article mentions Robbies Agent saying there were several people there who stayed overnight to celebrate his birthday, they just shove this near the end, well after they have seeded the "sensational" information.

Also why I would never envy anyone in the public eye, especially as a contestant on SCD who along with the BBC in general the Daily Mail has a real problem with.

I doubt anything but flirting went on , Robbie made it clear from start of scd he wanted to partner Natalie . I think that has played a part in him partnering Natalie instead of Katya on tour . Bit of a stupid position to put themselves in though , its a good job NOTW isnt around .

I know it's the Daily Mail and all that but arriving with a suitcase and not leaving until gone nine the next morning.
I wouldn't be very comfortable if I was his wife reading that.

This is exactly the reaction the DM want. There is no substance or facts to back up what happened just nasty innuendo.

The DM seems to have removed the story now although it's still on the People's site (which is where I assume the DM found their...erm...'scoop' )


Are you not just falling into the trap they've set for you?

Natalie's a dancer, I'm sure she trundles her work kit around with her. The agent said there was a party and lots of people crashed. It's just as easy to believe the innocent explanation as the grubby one.

They say things like - Natalie leaving in last night's clothes (so we think 'slutty'); mention his wife and kids (so we think 'Ha! Some family man!'); they say they didn't spot anyone else arriving or leaving (we conclude they must have been alone!). It's pure tosh. Unfortunately we're all so well trained in jumping to salacious conclusions, we do their scummy work for them

The DM have pulled the story this morning. They should be bloody ashamed of themselves.

I obviously didn't make myself clear. My reaction wasn't what you implied. I can't stand the gutter press. I meant to say that they should realise the press watch their every move for a 'scoop' and that arriving that late with a suitcase and staying all night was very naive.
I do feel though that his wife won't be happy to read it. I feel really sorry for the hurt the press cause families with these stories.

Several of them could have been booked into the same hotel. It is likely the BBC would have done a block booking. Chelsee is from the Rochdale area - it's likely she would have been booked into a hotel too. I don't understand why Natalie entering a hotel with a suitcase and leaving the next day is such a big deal.

Chelsee tweeted a pic a couple of weeks ago of her & Robbie having breakfast together at the hotel the bbc books for them.

And I bet they weren't the only ones there - Russell is from Wales, and not all the pros are London based.

I really don't understand the problem

I'm not saying I believe the story, sounds dubious to me, but had to laugh at the agent's quote 'Robbie had a birthday party in London with invited guests, friends, colleagues from the media and *members of the Strictly production team. The group met downstairs in the bar and later adjourned to Robbie’s room where they were joined by Natalie and other colleagues'What size of a hotel room did Robbie have to accomodate all these party guests?

Isn't it best just to not give this any airtime ?