Please, please let this come true.

Pretty Please

I'm with you Sarah, although I do think it was a bit of a daft way to behave. But he is in the right. They obviously did make an exception for a big star and I like that he protested.

Bruno has a bit of a history with threatening to quit. He allegedly was going to quit if Craig returned this year and has stated he will quit if Craig is made head judge. Lots of quity quitting threats galore.

I read the Daily Record article, obviously just based on the version from the Star. Big headline about Bruno quitting then when you read the article it says he had a tantrum (sure nothing unusual about that) and quit but decided to stay after he was spoken to by someone. So a complete non-story!

I played back the bit after Tess apologised for Bruno's language and did laugh at the "B**cks, B**cks" in the background whilst Craig was giving his critique I wouldn't have noticed unless Tess had said anything!

Same here, I was like, why is Tess apologising and had to rewind and listen.
I do think Craig can't comment sometimes without the other three, shaking their heads or muttering something, that is not fair.

Totally agree, Penelope Bruno is passionate guy and he just doesn't think, just goes with his heart.

Of course he hasn't. It's just more offensive click bait!

Losing both would spell disaaahster!

I thought this was strange when I saw this headline too. What they both had a meltdown? Unlikely, and more unlikely Bruno would threaten to quit about a ruling, he knows how the show works after all these years. My guess? They are trying to cover up the fact Anastacia DID have her meltdown (although the horse has already well and truly bolted on that one) by throwing Bruno to the wolves in the hopes people will believe that instead. Its not like this is unfamiliar territory for Bruno after all, but he might pick up some sympathy from those who thought the ruling was utter crap. My money would still be on Anastacia throwing a hissy fit.

Well, frankly I thought the idea that Anastacia had the meltdown was rather LESS likely than Bruno having one.

Bruno is probably far more likely to exhibit "diva" behaviour than she is. Anyway, I don't think I tend to place much credence on info offered by a backstage "mole", as there is no independent way of verifying it and it can give people an opportunity to try to influence the perceptions of others when they claim to have unique insight into prevailing circumstances.

That said, if I was Bruno and the tabloids were reporting that I had stormed off, if in fact I had done nothing of the sort, I'd be setting the record straight with no hesitation. It would be interesting to find out if he denies this happening.

But that is why you are not Bruno and he is Bruno...and if I know him, he more than likely volunteered himself to be thrown to the wolves just so he could take centre stage in the whole debacle. Let's face it, a shrinking violet he is not; hell, he could give Tameka lessons in the art of attention-seeking!

He apparently was on the "verge" of resigning, but why spoil a good headline.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/b...y-come-8987640

Anastasia will in all probability be in bottom two again this week. She will then be out. Surely the judges would not put her through against anyone else who can end up in the dance off.

Will still be voting for her anyway.

I love the notion that only one hissy hit/diva strop could possibly take place on SCD at any given time!

I don't know about you but I don't trust "newspapers" such as The Daily Star (you can hardly call that a newspaper).
You may not like it or believe it, but backstageone always provided information that proved to be correct at the end. I like Anastacia and didn't want to believe that meltdown and manipulation story, but said poster never lied or provided incorrect information before.

There will still be bias even if the bare bones are true. Look how differently some interpret her injury and motives for not doing the DO.

Maybe she didn't give him/her a cupcake.

Why does he care though (assuming there's any truth in this)? Point of principle - 'rules is rules' ? Professional loyalty to the pro dancer who may be bounced off the show? His firey Italian nature? Does he think the viewers are being cheated?

ATEOTD, it's just a bit of fun, so if the TV execs want to bend the 'rules' of their own show, what skin is it off his nose who goes out at which stage? It's not like, say, X-Factor or BGT or any show where 'ordinary' people's lives are being toyed with. The celebs are there because they're already famous. Whether they go out first or win the thing won't make any difference to how their life might pan out. I can appreciate he may be supporting the pro who may be un-fairly kicked out early, thus cutting short their opportunities to shine, but you don't get on SCD by being an amateur. They're already well established as dancers.

Why not just do your job and let the TV people run their show how they want to? As long as no laws are being broken, no-one is being lied to or cheated and there's nothing else un-ethical or immoral going on, what's it to him?

(And I say this as a big fan of the show.)

Yes, of course there will be bias. I want to believe that she ended up behaving like that because she panicked and wasn't thinking straight (and who would be, tbh?). However, like I said, said poster always provided accurate and truthful info, so it's hard not to believe them.

I'm with Bruno on this. The rules are worded in such a way that they can decide to do anything they want to suit their purpose.

They had a dilemma - do they tell Anastacia that she has to retire from the show because she couldn't dance or do they do as they did and send Melvin home as having the least public vote?

Personally I'd go with "If you can;t dance, you go" unless you have been given a one week bye for the whole week due to illness or injury and don't take part at all that week as they have in the past, when there will still be a dance off between the bottom to that week.

It isn't a fund raising event for charities, and although Anastacia is raising money for a good cause and I feel every sympathy for her current condition and getting injured, if you can't perform then it's goodbye. That's what happens in all other shows which require some form of physical activity - The Jump, Splash, Total Wipeout, Dancing on Ice, The Krypton Factor - to name just a few.

Yes, but where are those 'rules'? Nobody's been able to find them. Did they simply pull them out of their **** ?

Frankly I don't particularly care if either, both or neither had a meltdown.

I can see that there is considerable emotional investment for those participating in the show - particularly as it is broadcast live - and I'd imagine that emotions often run high.

However, as a mere viewer I find it difficult to get wrapped up in the drama of it all and prefer to see the show as nothing more than Saturday night light entertainment. I don't tend to read motives and agendas into everything in the way that many people on here seem to do.

Although I do like the spoiler thread enabling me on a Saturday night to see who leaves - very handy for me as I never see the Sunday results show - I don't really approve of people from behind the scenes gossiping about things which are going on off camera. it's really no better than the made-up nonsense that is peddled by the papers from "a source". As it cannot be disproved by anyone else, so it ends up being taken as "gospel", even though it is just one person's uncorroborated account, which may in fact be merely their own opinion.

I'm not trying to be rude about the person who is the mole - simply saying that although they may have access to insider information, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will always be a true account. On that basis, it should be treated with the same caution as any other snippet of information from "a source".

LOL, well possibly , but I think I prefer that to the alternative scenario that a bunch of people sat round a table and actually came up with a set of rules to cover every conceivable situation. How would that have gone?

- Right, so the two dancers with the lowest scores have a dance-off. Judges vote who was best. Dancer with least judges votes goes out. We've got three judges signed up, so there's a clear majority.
- What if we sign-up another one? We could have a 2-2 vote.
- Well, that'll never happen, for precisely that reason, but if it does, I dunno, we'll designate one of them Head Judge or something and he decides who goes.
- Fair enough. What if one of the bottom two can't dance in the Dance-Off?
- You're just taking the piss now, aren't you? There's a couple of hours at most between them. What are they gonna do in that time? Get plastered in the Green Room? Ok, so we'll make sure they stick around and watch everyone else dance so we can keep an eye on them. Happy now?

Maybe they did make it up on the spot, but again, so what? Whatever they did would be criticised. If anything, you could say the BBC wimped out by going for the public vote, as it meant no-one had to make the final call on whether Anastacia stayed or went because of her injury.

Can anyone explain to me why the Beeb would jeopardize their big, established Saturday-night ratings winner for Anastacia because she is "a big star"? Firstly, Strictly is far too valuable a property for the Beeb to do anything to deliberately endanger it (cock-up, yes, conspiracy, no). And secondly, in Beeb terms Anastacia is not a big star, she's a here-today-gone-tomorrow minnow. Now, if they wanted to fix the rules for David Attenborough? (Although David Attenborough could probably walk through every week and still win aged 90+.)

There would be spewing drama and horror that he was being given consideration for age.