I don't think it compares your speed to anyone elses, but you against yourself.

There is not much more info on that one yet but it speaks of a previous occasion which this was then the reply

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/...tor/ar-AAj0yEW

“Three medical professionals identified themselves on the flight in question. Only one was able to produce documentation of medical training and that is the doctor who was asked to assist the customer onboard.

“Flight attendants are trained to collect information from medical volunteers offering to assist with an onboard medical emergency.

“When an individual’s medical identification isn’t available, they’re instructed to ask questions such as where medical training was received or whether an individual has a business card or other documentation and ultimately to use their best judgement.”

So in that instance to me it is common sense one had ID there is no need to determine the training of the others you just take the one with ID .

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-...-is-not-racist

Yes.


But figures from the show's previous 13 series do not, at least historically, appear to support the idea of racist voting.
In fact, the 28 non-white celebrities who have competed across the previous 13 series of Strictly have actually lasted on average longer in the competition than their white counterparts.
Seventeen of those 28 contestants (60.7%) made it past the halfway point, and only six were knocked out in the first three eliminations of their series.
On average, non-white contestants made it through 7.6 weeks of the competition – especially impressive given that some of the earlier series were much shorter, with Natasha Kaplinsky triumphing in 2004 after a run of just eight weeks.
Strictly has produced two non-white winners – Louis Smith (2012) and Alesha Dixon (2007) – and four runners-up: Denise Lewis (2005), Colin Jackson (2006), Ricky Whittle (2009) and Natalie Gumede (2013).
The past two years have also seen greater diversity amongst contestants, with over a quarter coming from ethnic minorities.
All in all, the statistics seem to paint a positive picture of the show and its viewers, perhaps suggesting that the results of the last three weeks are simply a blip.
Meanwhile, the three scores of a perfect ten picked up by Ore Oduba for his performance in the jive on Saturday night, suggest he may have a long way yet to go before his Strictly journey comes to an end.

They forgot Mark Ramprakash.

I think you're right that the statistics seem to paint a positive picture of the show and its viewers. Biases of various sorts most likely do affect the show at times, but overall it does pretty well.

It's also sometimes thought that Strictly is affected by gender bias, but the number of male and female winners is nearly the same. (Since there's been an odd number of SCDs, it can't be exactly the same.)

I don't think that is a compelling argument. Black contestants would have a higher average if there were several winners and runners up.

It doesn't mean that those of equal ability aren't more likely to be voted off. It could mean that in order to last longer black contestants have to be substantially better. And that ties up with what has happened this year. The only black contestants remaining is one who is substantially better than the rest and would go through on points earned in the dance rather than public support.

Just my opinion of course but I think Natalie Gumede would have won in 2013 if she had been white.

Honestly, I don't think so. She was the designated 'Ringer' of that series. In the same way that DvO had lost out the year before to the contestant on a j-word, so did she. It's the storyline that's the important thing not the participants.

May be, I plead innocent here, She was my favourite and I voted for her. I am still in denial about Abbey winning.

So the fact that there have been several non white winners and runners up means it's harder to prove that the voting is racist? I'm finding this whole thing really difficult to follow.



I still maintain that Natalie was also harmed by the fact that she was playing an unlikeable character on Coronation Street. Some people will base their votes on such things.

I so wish that wasn't true but sadly you are right.

I don't buy the 'she would have won if she had been white' schtick at all. To ignore the fact that there are numerous factors other than pure technical ability that go into peoples' decisions as to who to vote for, and that it is all subjective anyway, is classic playing the race card stuff.

Whilst technically good, her performances were uninvolving, distinctly lacking in the joie de vivre displayed by Abbey. Of course some of the reason for that has to be laid at the door of gloomy Gnashers Chigvintsev, and his wafty choreography.
That's my opinion of course, but clearly I wasn't alone in finding Abbey more enjoyable to watch.

There may be a few sad people that sit and watch and then say to themselves, "well she was really good, but hey, she's not white, so I won't vote for her"; but enough of them to change the result - nah.

The way things are looking at the moment, we could end up with a similar situation this year, but this time it's the white contestant who's the ringah and the black guy with the whole novice journey behind him.

If we do get this situation and Danny wins, will that be brandished as a clear sign of racism? What if Ore wins? Will any posters saying they preferred Danny be showing their unconscious bias?

I agree, the same to a certain extent Tameka , she is very annoying in EE (and on strictly) maybe her fan base was small?

Tameka only left because of her placement in the main show, I suspect she was probably one of the most popular in terms of voting the first couple of weeks.

Melvin wasn't that well-known and Naga was sort of a cold fish...

- nothing to do with race!

Race or not, one thing for sure, we are very shallow and only good looking celebs have won, Strictly. I am guilty in this category and I am changing from ths day forward.
I was supporting Laura and from now on going to support Lesley, meaning I will only vote for Lesley.

Priceless stuff

Well they will wont they , that's people.

Yes. Racist people.

How anyone can get worked up about the colour of the actors/actresses in a panto baffles me.

It really does.

No it's not in my opinion.

As long as someone is there in a role because they are either good at it or they are a star that brings in the punters ( which is often the case) then I couldn't care what colour they are but it would appear some people go to a panto etc with a dulux colour chart and a calculator.

If Danny wins, who can guarantee it is not because people think Oti is awesome and this benefits Danny by default.

If they "lasted on average longer in the competition than their white counterparts", it has to happen somehow. Are winners and runners-up not supposed to count for some reason? Well, the take all the winners and runners-up out (all of them, no matter what their ethnicity) and calculate the average again. That would be interesting. But merely dismissing the average that includes all contestants seems rather questionable to me.

(Of course, the all-contestants average doesn't prove there's no bias; it does however, say something about how great an effect any such bias can actually be having.)


That doesn't mean that black contestants have to be substantially better. No one ever does a proper analysis. They just pick out things they think fit the theory.

Is it even clear that the 3 BAME contestants who've been eliminated were lowest in the public vote?

It will, in my opinion, only hurt the poorer dancers.

And that is why those who would like to think race isn't an issue (well, in one sense we'd all like to think that) will come back with 'Melvin, Tameka, and Naga weren't that good, so it proves nothing'.

But, (as I said on another thread!!!!) a small percentage (and I really do hope it is a small percentage) will never vote for a black contestant, because they vote BNP (and they have been known to win council seats in the past- at one point one was even a member of the London Assembly) Now, in a tight situation were you have 3 contestants at the bottom, separated by less than 1,000 votes between them, it really could be a difference, because all BNP voters, plus a few (not tarring everyone with the same brush) UKIP supporters are NEVER going to give the black contestant their vote.

That won't be a problem for Ore, as he is good enough that that small percentage of people won't be able to land him in the danger zone. For me, it's too early to know if he deserves to win this year, BUT, if he is good enough, he will win (as in, hopefully not enough BNP type people that could harm his chances) but, in the early stages, with lots of people to vote for (so those in bottom 2 or 3 will have less votes than those in bottom 2 or 3 in, say, 6 weeks time, a small swing could easily be the difference between 3rd bottom, and safe, or dance off.

So- conclusion- If good enough Ore could easily win (not enough BNP type people to stop him), but in early rounds poorer dancers could be disadvantaged over white poor dancers...

And of course, if Ore gets to final week, or even wins, some people will say, 'There you are. Told you there wasn't a problem, and anyone who says there is is just trying to make mischief'.