You could be right, maybe she isn't.

But here's the bit I don't get. If Georgia, or Peter or someone else isn't getting the public votes then surely that means that the public are not liking them as much as some of the others. They're not as popular and people don't like watching them as much as their competitors.

Which begs the question..Why the need to keep them in with manipulation? It's not like say Big Brother where the show could lose their entertaining and funny contestant(s) too soon for the producers liking, because in the case of Strictly the dances are the entertainment.

It's not that I don't think that some manipulation goes on, reality TV is always loosely scripted up to a point, I just don't buy that it's as clever and calculated as some claim.

But hey, I could be totally wrong.

She's said nothing we haven't said on here really... though there is a feel of 'if you're going to try and drag me down I'll take you with me' about it. I have the feeling she didn't quit the show.

think they use music and costume to manipulate things too - just look at the music Katie, Anita and Helen have had and costumes very obvious imo

Because certain celebrities *coughPetercough provide column inches for the show whether he is popular or not. This provides Strictly with free publicity.

It's also good panto to have a more disliked contestant in the show for as long as possible. People, in general, talk just as much about the ones they dislike as the ones they like. You want to see your disliked contestant in bottom 2 as much as you want to see your favourite top the leaderboard.

Much as I'm not a fan of Peter, through gritted teeth, the show is more interesting with him in it. things are boring when you like everyone.

The producers of these shows do take liberties in my opinion, bearing in mind that the public are invited to pay for the privilege of voting. I don't imagine it's confined to encouraging a bit of manipulation of the judges' leader board either. It stands to reason that there will be conflicts of interest in that the fairest outcome is not necessarily the 'best' outcome in terms of ratings or whatever. I stopped voting after series 3 and didn't start again until they brought in the free online voting.

I welcome 'insiders' speaking out because when it's just the viewers the producers can dismiss it as paranoia...particularly as some viewers do go way OTT in their conspiracy theorising. I've made the point with other shows that there is surely a case for tighter regulation and greater transparency to prevent viewers being mugged off.

Totally agree with your post, very interesting that to see Ola, as an insider, has come out with these remarks, even if she has an element of sour grapes about it, think it's pretty much the truth.

She mentions that a lot of the professionals feel the same way, and I quite believe this to be true.

The Judges have always had their favourites, and over marked/ under marked various competitors over the years, but I'm feeling this year it's been more blatant than ever.

There have been quite a few high marks for performances with obvious mistakes this year. We all know they are going out of their way to never criticise a certain individual, and it's getting quite farcical.

I do have big issue with Anita's under-marking, yes she may not be technically correct at times, but as we all know she has no dancing background, and others are getting high marks for performances very underwhelming compared to hers. I'm loving the enthusiasm she puts in each week, and think she is exactly what scd should be encouraging, but no, every week she's mid table.

Anyway, it's good to see that we're not fooled by the Judges/Producers manipulation, and well said Ola for confirming what we already know.

Have to say now we're getting down the best dancers, gets interesting seeing how they continue their fixing ways.

Kinda love how we will all get outraged at the marks from here on in.

I've got to the point where half my enjoyment of the show is shouting at the TV over the judges marks, yes I actually do this

There may be some truth in it. But it's also very true that the "judges" are not entirely fit for purpose and also miss a lot of action through angles and props.

Either way, it's pretty selfish and spiteful to do this now. Other dancers and the public deserve more consideration.

It's clear for all to see that her position on the show had long since become untenable (her husband) and thus "quitting" would be at best jumping before being pushed (if not fabricated).

All that is left is for the bbc to take the decision to revoke her security pass so that her show exit can be as tacky and classless as most of her routines and dresses.

Exactly and I like her more for speaking out. Oh the pro's are on fire this week another link not sure if there's any more info http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...e-Dancing.html

I agree with everything she's said.

I think Anita did some Indian dancing in the past - which would explain her flexibility and beautiful hands. Maybe this is what Ola is referring to

I do agree with her about the marking but not about the pairings.

1: of course the producers want to mix it up and make sure different pros are featured. That's happened since strictly started without a group dance to help. If we can earmark Jay, Georgia, Helen as likely to be good without seeing them dance. So can the producers.likewise the likely conedy duffers.
2; she said it used to be done on height and personality. Well having a big group rehearsal surely gives them a much better idea of personalities than just guessing? It's pretty clear from the group dance and how much Aliona danced with Peter that he was one of her possible pairings. I think it's highly likely she ended up with Jay because of their personalities and how they worked together rather than the fact they felt he'd get her further than Peter. Likewise Team GG they just clicked on that rehearsal and it was obvious they had to be together.

Not sure if it's the way it's written, but she's come off extremely unpleasant in that interview

The interview is in the Sun - owned in the end by the same firm which owns Sky TV - and they're forever sniping at the BBC.

Think Ola is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Pros who win always have had a weak contestant the year after - fair enough.

Not obvious at all in the first group dance that Jay would stand out - far too nervous. He could have stayed that way - Aliona said the Saturday rehearsals for the Jive weren't good. Not obvious he'd be the best dancer - Helen and Kellie have had more, and better, training.

Don't think the judges know the public votes. Strictly has always kept them secret to protect celebrity feelings -they need to attract people next year.

Why would the PTB bother trying to keep unpopular contestants in - what would be he point? Think there's been a bit of manipulation to try to keep the contest balanced this year once Jay became so popular - with running order, giving Jay Argentine Tango so early, etc - but the PTB aren't very good at it.

(The BBC don't make any money from voting - even from the phone calls. In the past any money went to Children in Need,)

I'm not quite sure what to make of the fact that Craig tweeted a link to Ola's interview:

Craig Revel Horwood ‏@CraigRevHorwood

Ola Jordan accuses Strictly of being FIXED http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...e-Dancing.html …

Eff off Mrs J.

You are tedious now.

*yawn*

Oh dear Ola.

Because partnering contestants based on height and personality has worked so well in the past, hasn't it?

More likely their Charleston was clearly better than Pete's the previous week & they had to mark accordingly to blur claims of bias.

Yes, a personal opinion of "unfair scoring" does NOT equate to "a fix" (except in the eyes of a trashy tabloid's headline writers)

i think there's a bit of truth in what she says, eg i am sure that not just height and/or personality goes into the pairings, and why should it? if the producers want to make sure a pro stays longer than they did the previous year thats ok by me as long as its not a ridiculous height disparity (although some just are as they don't have enough tall ladies...)

marking isn't consistent, but place on the leader board is usually fair enough, and again thats fine for a light entertainment show. there's always debate around this regardless as dance is a subjective thing, as is 'effort' and 'personality'.

but overall she comes across as sulky and petulant

Unpleasant and bitter. Ola and her husband really are a toxic pair.

She's decided to quit after realising they aren't going to ask her back anyway. I'm surprised they had her back this year actually, after what went on last year.

The atmosphere in Blackpool between Ola and the judges is going to be rather interesting this weekend. Oh to be a fly on the wall.

The burning question of the moment is............who first said 'unfair scoring'?

Was it the Blessed Ola or a trashy tabloid?

My money is on James.

I have reached the point now that I cannot stand the little madam.
Her calendar hit a new low and she knew damn well that it would be a step too far.........then had the bare-faced cheek to say she was leaving.
No dear.........you jumped before you were pushed.

Not sure why any of the judges would want to communicate with her though.

and James is a cheerleader for Peter, whose benefited the most from over-marking. To be fair James has called out the preferential performance order given to PA.

Nothing new here. The show as long time viewers know is fixed. Reference years where the judges made sure through scoring and ties on the leader board that Gethin did not make it through to the final ( to popular with the public ) and the year that they made it to blatant in an attempt to block Tom Chambers from the final and they had to go back on the attempt. The knowledge of how celebs are doing in the public vote allows producers to instruct judges how to place celebs in the judges vote to allow preferred candidates to progress and to knock out threats. Always been the way and to be fair and don't think you can place the blame on the judges. Sometimes the sheer weight of popularity of a celeb wins out anyhow.

Agree.

As for Georgia...

I know some may think that she should have got less marks for her Charleston or Samba. In my opinion she more than deserved her marks (which I've gone into before) but aside from that, a few points I want to make.

Regardless of marks that Georgia got for her Charleston, its the position on the leaderboard that counts - I think the majority of people would agree that she deserved to be top of the leaderboard anyway, and she deserved her 2nd top place on leaderboard with her samba, so its not really relevant in terms of influencing her getting through.

Secondly, going by the buzz on social media after her Charleston and Samba - its was obvious she wasn't in a dangerous place - she didn't need to get help the weeks she got high marks because she put in great performances and as a result was picking up votes and popularity by the week because of this. As fan of Georgia from week one, I've noticed her surge in popularity at the time she was getting high marks.

Considering the judges have been doing the show for years.....if they really believe that overmarking will get their favourites through and undermarking will get the ones they don't like out they must really have no idea about how it works. Its obvious an overmarked person loses votes and a person considered to be undermarked is the best thing for their popularity - they get loads more votes out of sympathy/sense of injustice/'I'll show the judges!' type of reaction.

I don't always agree with the results, but I think its more down to them being subjective and having their own bias rather than a well planned out strategy connected to the voting figures. The scores play a part, but its the public vote that really counts in the end - and as I said, if theres ever whats considered to be 'unfair' scoring it will benefit the persons chances who are being undermarked every time.