As far as I can remember, all that someone said about Patrick was that he didn't inspire them to pick up the phone and vote, and that Natalie was just too good to have shown much progress.

They were than asked who they wanted to win, which guests are asked every week.

I didn't think that their comments were nasty or controversial at all.

LOL someone's parped out the "oooh Natalie's too good, the public want to see progression and she's not going to get any better" line on It Takes Two at some point more or less every week since the beginning. It's hardly radical. The only offensive thing any of them said is when Heidi said she missed Julian, for which she should have been immediately expelled from the show.

Would be pretty boring if the panel fawned over everyone tbh

Amazed that Range picked Clancy as her winner. Didn't see that coming at all.

Re Natalie it wasn't exactly harsh but it was the usual lameness. She's not my winner but that's not because she's spanked the opposition. That's a compelling reason FOR her to win in my book.

No they don't. Why would you even think that?

I mean they're certainly not meant to represent this forum, otherwise Heidi and Stephen would have sat there having a passive-aggressive cat-fight over Natalie and Sophie whilst Russell yelled "Is ZoeBall YOUR STRICTLY FAVORIT FLAVOR? Is she more of a RUM'N'RAISIN or a ROCKY ROAD?"

I don't think Stephen Mulhern had quite the turn of phrase of a Rufus Hound but his point about Patrick has some truth, and I speak as someone who has started to really appreciate Patrick, he does come in and out of focus for me.

Sometimes I think he's great, otherwise not so much. I don't think he knows how to play the light entertainment game meself like.

Sorry just wanted to use the cat smiley again!! lolz

Stephen Mulhern has been filed in the idiot box in my head.
I've upgraded him from plank.

If they should be neutral, what purpose do you think the panel serve? I think they're supposed to be like a group of people (albeit far more glamorous) sitting at home with their opinions about the dancers. Not exactly Gogglebox, but getting there.

They serve no purpose apart from getting their faces on TV.

**** sake Monkseal, stop inspiring him

PS: I'm not given over to fawning but, credit due, your line about Bruno 'making the universal sign for ovary voters' complete with photo evidence is the funniest thing I have read/seen in an age. Bravo.

For anyone who hasn't read Monkseal's latest installment, enjoy - http://monkseal.wordpress.com/2013/1...0-performance/

Post of the day?

Mulhearn can't have seen Patrick in his red jumper. Nothing else explains his idiotic comments. Curse the fool.

(Dear Mods, thank you for the smilies. You are the 's whiskers)

well they are like us, but on a GOOD day...

otherwise we'd also need a point and shriek crotch-watch brigade and the tired old expert who is into their 11th year of being angry and bitter about the sheer absence of anything anywhere near properly proper enough.

I don't think they said anything wrong?

Natalie is quite boring, good but bland. Sometimes I even forget that she's still on the show. I'd expect to see her in the dance off very soon actually because I don't think people are connecting with her.

... and a big board with cheap cut-out celeb faces and tinsel-strewn labels Ringer, Smug, Dreary, Fake, Vile, Joke-Act, Duffer, Over-marked etc to assign appropriately. You could make a nice feature of getting guests to match them up. And a nice idiots' corner for people like me to be over-pleased about the cat smiley.

I thought they were there to flog whatever panto/TV programme/ CD/ upcoming Strictly results show appearance was going on

And someone brandishing a bumper pack of pregnancy tests.

Regarding the Natilie comment I guess when someone makes it look so easy and is clearly the best dancer from the start of the competition like Natilie this year, it's almost as if, for some, it takes a bit of the fun out of it.
(Of course that doesn't mean she will win- people vote for all sorts of reasons, not just ability.)

Indeed, there's more than enough puke inducing fawning from Zoe as it is.

I seem to remember Suggs saying that he wanted Dave to win and nobody seemed too worried about that. It's a just a panel with opinions and if everyone had the same opinion they wouldn't need a panel anyway.

In fact though, I agree with the Natalie comment. I watch her expecting a great dance with wonderful choreography from Artem. Anything less is a disappointment. It's almost impossible for them to create the same excitement as Suzanna's Paso or Sophie's Charleston when people sat up and said "Wow they can dance!"

It's not just that the comments were negative. They contradicted themselves by saying Nat was not that good and then too good. And gave no reason for disliking Patrick. One could think they don't know their own minds or that the real reason they don't like them was something else. I hated that episode and that's my opinion.

Delete .

I agree. For me it wasn't just that they were being negative, it was also that l felt they were being just a little too pointed in their need to underline their preference and l found Russell's silence made it even more uncomfortable to watch. I also felt that Zoe was also uncomfortable with the line they were taking, hence her shutting down any further comment and changing to the next contestant. She probably felt the comments were a little too unfair as she was once in Natalie's position particularly being a past favourite because she was also that good.

I also dislike the term 'just too good' as it seemingly penalizes excellence and talent. Why can some in this country only appreciate the underdog? Other countries celebrate and promote their talented while we tend to disparage and dismiss ours generally in favour of the mediocre.