This makes sense.

The oddest part is, in any year when there was only elimination via lowest public/Judges scores combined, Melvin would be out anyway.

Kinda hard to raise awareness by being quiet...

Anastacia is the person (of those involved) with the least idea of what goes on, on Strictly.
Brendan has 14 Series of experience of what can happen, but that has changed a lot over the 14 Series.
The producer is the one who has control of the most things, and may be making new rules up on a minute to minute basis.
It's also an entertainment show, and not a 'real' competition, so decisions are made for other reasons than fairness.
I am just a punter on Digitalspy who has almost no certain information to go on.


I don't know where the idea has come from that Brendan was also injured on Friday?

Some injuries are easier to assess than others. If this is a deep soft tissue injury, then it could require an MRI scan for a consultant to be able to get the best idea of the extent of the injury.
Doctors working off feedback from Anastacia about the symptoms she feels, would have to make an educated guess.

When you factor in the timescale and that things (such as Brendan and Anastacia trying to come up with a routine that she can do which will not injure her further), then you can see how it can become a whole mess of decisions, all made at short notice, with limited information. Each decision taken can limit options for the future.

One thing they can't then do is go back to the previous day and start again.

He says so here

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/strictl...-come-dancing/

Thanks Ellie!


The information after the Show about Will shows how we can get the wrong idea.

From what Will said, I thought he had injured himself while performing live on the Show. Tess must also have thought something new had happened, for her to act like it might require interrupting the live Show.
As it turns out, it happened before the Show and he had been applying heat to it before hand to lessen it's affect on his performance. So it seems he was just trying to point out that he was carrying an injury into his performance.

Suggestions of backstage meltdowns, "diva-like" behaviour, arrogance and selfishness all sound quite a lot like vilification to me... and I've seen them all in this very forum since Saturday evening.

Totally agree with this. I admire people in the public eye who use their profile to highlight causes they feel strongly about or raise awareness but I personally cannot stand anyone who has to publicly state how much money they have given to charity, or in Anastacia's case make it known that she is giving her fee to charity. In my opinion this should be done privately, which the vast majority of people do who give money to charity.

I agree that some of the posts are quite blunt and no one knows exactly what happened backstage so shouldn't really be commenting on that but I think she was selfish not to withdraw from the competition. I would never have done what she did in the same position no matter what the reason for my injury. I do think the cancer is clouding some people's judgement and it feels like she is beyond any kind of criticism at times just because she has had this particular disease.

As far as I'm concerned she couldn't compete in the dance off so should have withdrawn, that would have been the right thing to do in the circumstance. If she does dance this weekend then I think it will completely backfire on her as it will make lots of people doubt that her injuries were as serious as she made out.

Agreed. Once this is public knowledge its impossible for that person to be viewed in the same manner as their fellow competitors.

To be honest Anastacia is bringing attention to cancer and promoting her recovery in a positive manner just by participating in the show (at least she was until Saturday's debacle anyway). There was no need to advertise her generosity in donating her fee to a charity as well.

Why not? It further advertises the cause? Better than reading about the love lives of contestants.

Why is even her generosity being backflipped to a negative?

Because we have different opinions.

Yes.

I still cannot get to grip why you wouldn't/shouldn't mention giving a fee to charity in order to raise its profile. All publicity etc.

I just feel that the detractors (not you specifically) are determined to find nefarious motives in everything she does.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree.

On the contrary my position has always been that having had cancer is irrelevant. If she had injured her ankle on the Friday, then again on the Saturday so that she couldn't do the dance off would she be getting all this vilification?

I feel it is those who feel she should never have done the show at all, because she had cancer and, or other health issues, who keep bringing up her cancer as a stick to beat her with, they seem to take delight in saying " well I knew it all would end in disaster" as a sort of "I told you so".

I really don't know whether she will continue or not, but then I wouldn't either with an ankle injury or any other injury.

How does saying how much you have given to charity further advertise the cause? Surely she or anyone else in the public eye can do that without disclosing how much money they have donated. Why do we need to know that?

It is nothing to do with her generosity it's the fact that she has chosen to publicise it I have a problem with, I would feel the same about a non celebrity,

I think she would still get some of the so called vilification you mention no matter what the injury, because in my opinion and that of a lot of other people she made the wrong decision and she was selfish not to withdraw from the competition. Her history of having cancer had nothing to with it for me and I do think that some people on the forum take umbrage that you dare to criticise someone's decision if they have had cancer.

I hope all those who support the various "In Pink" days get out there and support her.

If she is the wort dancer on the night then fair enough, she should be out. But that should be the only reason she leaves, not because of some bitch fest against her.

I have never had a "bitch fest" against her and it's posts like yours which gets peoples back up. Everyone is entitled to state their opinion and I personally thought she should have withdrawn from the competition if she couldn't participate in the dance off which is why I won't be supporting her from now on, her having cancer is completely irrelevant to me.

So how much money has she donated? I for one am not aware. I only know that she is using her strictly run as a fundraiser, donating her fee (however much that may be) and getting sponsored along the way. I am not aware how much else she donated over the years? If she's making a big fuss about that, it has passed me by.

But I'm curious now. How much is it?

It's great she is donating her money, a lot of other people donate as well and don't make a song and dance about it (pun intended ).

I for one do not need reminding, heard it when she signed up for SDC as it was well publicised then.

IMO cancer charities do not need the publicity as they all have adverts/well publicised events etc, that the general public participate in. I do not need an American singer to tell me to donate and what a horrible disease it is, I know that already through family experience. I don't want her staying in the show because of her crusade albeit for a good cause and I don't want to hear people whinging that she injured herself even more because she was giving her fee to charity. She should keep it private from now on.

Those 2 sentences seem to be contradictory as one seems to be exhorting people to vote for her, and the other talks about going through on merit. I may vote for Anastacia if she turns in a performance I particularly enjoy. However if she doesn't, I will vote for someone else.

If people strongly want to support a cause there are more practical things they can do. They can become a local volunteer and work with people with long term illness or disability, take them out, organise events etc. These do take more effort than ticking a box on the internet and pressing submit and that's the issue I have; that there will be a significant number of people (not all) who get a false sense of having 'done something' when really all they've done is vote for a celeb on a reality programme.

For me and many of my friends and colleagues it is more than "a box ticking exercise". So for my two cents worth and perhaps for others like me, this getting at Anastacia feels more personal. Like strangers ganging up on the friend who needs help to do something they used to find easy. Finding ways to help them as sensitively as possible, so they get to feel just to feel a little bit normal again.

I understand wanting people to feel a bit more normal again. I actually do voluntary work for dance as therapy for a particular set of illnesses (not cancer related) and I know how effective it can be. However I think there are very few people who have an issue about Anastacia's participation in Strictly. Most people"s concerns were with process and fairness to Melvin. Maybe it feels more personal than it is intended to be.

Ann there is little doubt that it has been very personal for a lot of people commenting on Anastasia.

The amount of people who have decided she as not even injured is staggering.

She has received a great deal of vilification from many people for even daring to attempt to do the show and even the fact that she has chosen to give her fee to charity has been used as another stick to beat her with.

If you aren't able to see this I would suggest that you read again, but quite honestly I wouldn't want anyone exposed to such spite.

Hmm....., I could go back and look, coppertop, but I'm now thinking I should stop discussing this and move on, as it's all a bit negative. I think I would be better expending my energy fretting about when Ed and Katya are going to get the jive.