If James Jordan is to be believed, the Mail gets fed stories straight from the BBC all the time, so maybe they're protecting their usual source for Strictly scandal stuff.

Really do think Peter is simply a poor dancer if given an orthodox waltz or foxtrot he will show just how poor
His pro struggles to give him choreography he can cope with

They are calling an extraordinary session of the UN Security Council to discuss this outrage.

I'll give him that his Charleston was good and he deserved to top the leaderboard for that - but every other week he's been well overmarked and had glaring errors ignored by the judges which meant he was protected from low public votes by an artificially high placing on the leaderboard.

I can see him m being in the dance off from here on in - as a protest from the public

Can I enquire what exactly the hypothetical story that the press could have covered consists of? What would that story look like? What would be its angle?

I am feeling rather bewildered I have to say.. I was out on both Saturday and Sunday nights (dancing as it happens) so my first infomation about Saturday's competition was from these boards.

On Saturday the impression I got was that a highly controversial decision had eliminated Jamelia over Peter. I was intrigued by the tone of the posts, since only a week before these same boards had been calling for Jamelia to be removed on the grounds that 'the public clearly want her gone as she has been in the bottom two so many times'

On the other hand there are so many on here who appear to have a pre-existing or off dance floor agenda regarding Peter. So I prepared to watch the replay with interest, expecting some extrordinary injustice and some mass reaction from the studio audience against the decision.

I watched - replaying at times and all I saw was Peter do a poor jive and a poor performance for him. He received critique to that effect. Jamelia did a good dance for her. It wasn't the best QS I ever saw but it was a marked improvement on many of her dances. She was complimented on her better performance

I thought they were the right two in the dance off. Their repsective dances seemed much of a muchness to me. Had I been a judge I would have saved Jamelia's QS over Peter's jive if I was choosing based only on the performances on the night. On the other hand if I was considering their overall performance over the weeks I would have probabaly voted the other way around.

I was also led to believe that the decision had caused a ripple of disquiet in the studio audience. I couldn't see any sign of it. Reading posts on here I was led to believe there was an "explosion of anger" But I don't know where, apart from here on DS, this explosion of anger is taking place; clearly not in the press.

People on here are angry its true (nothing new there) But they have been angry about Peter since before the series started and strangley pretty angry about Jamelia too, until the last day or two. Anger that appears to have little to do with their dancing and much to do with the people they are perceived to be,

So I not sure I understand what the story is.

I hope thats a joke....good one if it was

Pixie was top of the board four times but eliminated in week 11.

Bring back Jamelia!

The people's champion!

Does anyone believe anything he says or writes>

Yes, the choregraphy was dull with little jive content but I suspect that in training Janette must have found that Peter could not perform many classic jive steps so came up with something with the feel of a jive but with steps that he could perform.
She's quite capable of choreographing a jive but there's no point unless her celeb can dance it

Pretty much summed it up.

On Friday one of the pros on the show accuses the BBC of fixing the show (which was widely reported in several papers) then on Saturday someone who is clearly worse is put through in the dance-off. There are then hundreds of comments all over twitter, facebook and Strictly's own website accusing them of fixing it. I would say it would be pretty easy to make a story out of that - papers like the DM have made stories out of much less without caring whether there is any truth in it or not.

Practically the entire press have covered the Ola accusations, a few have added references about the public's reaction to the dance-off to the same story.

Thanks Ellie. As you observe its pretty easy to make an argument out of nothing. A good way to start is to get an old pro to make a statement that can be construed or misconstrued as an accusation. Then you can enginner a good old spat. It sounds like we are in the realms of meta argument?

Move along now. Nothing to see here.

Totally agree with this. Yes, taken over all he is the better dancer, but the dance off rule is that the dancers are judged on their D.O. dance and that only. Jamelia did a lovely dance. I'm still wondering what dance Peter did. At times he looked too knackered to lift his feet up and his kicks looked like he was trying to shake something nasty off the end of his shoe.

None of the Main Papers are running with it, strangely the Mail is very quiet, though they can't oppose the Andre Cash Cow machine can they

Did find this though....

http://uk.blastingnews.com/showbiz-t...-00665013.html

In a nutshell, that is what the controversy is all about. Both Craig and Darcey gave Jamelia higher marks than Petef in the show. In the dance-off they reversed that decision and saved Peter.
The main thrust of the argument is that the dance-off should be judged by the performance "on the night" and not by overall performances over previous weeks. Which makes a lot of sense, why bother with a dance-off at all if they are going to base their decisions on performances over previous weeks ?

Do people still buy papers?

Social media is where it's at and there was plenty of coverage.

I still buy papers.
I quite like to know whats going on in the world beyond TV and celebrity gossip.

Ah yes that highly respected establishement of the fourth estate "Blasting News"

A lot more to social media than that. Depends what your interests are.

Well I am inclined to agree that the dance off criteria could be more transparent. It seems very much a movable feast. In the past they have given their reasons as most improved in the dance off, best in the dance off, best over the series as a whole and I think we have even had best potential- i.e saved because of future performances .

Or at least I would agree if this was a proper competition but as it is paid perfomers taking part in an entertainment show I can't get worked up.

To those of you who claim there is no story here for the press to cover, I ask this: why did Kristina allegedly not giving the show producers an advance copy of her book (something they had to retract as it was false) make front page news? Why constant coverage of Jay & Aliona having an affair when most of us can see that they aren't?

This IS a story - I suspect the papers are keeping quiet because they know they'll never get any juicy titbits from the beeb or from Andre's camp again if they run this.

I am not saying the papers are failing to cover a trivial or salacious story. I am asking what the story is. Because at the moment the story seems to be no more than

Some viewers are really grumpy about the result of SCD this weekend and are questioning the judges decsision'

Not exactly Woodward and Bernstien is ti?

To be fair, the Mirror has run the story that 'fans SLAMMED' the results show - because Anastasia sang an old song.