This is the problem with having argued with extremists elsewhere is that I've possibly developed some bad habits. I've over-stated the case and it's over-shadowed what I was actually trying to say and worse I've caused offence. I still think what happened wasn't great for reasons that I don't think cliques are great in any workplace but I found a stupid way of arguing it. I apologise and hope that people can forgive that.

Relax, I may have worded my post a bit too strongly too. You don't need to apologise and I wasn't specifically referring to you. All good

So I'm the bad guy. Look I'm sorry to have caused offence - sincerely and utterly. Whatever point I had got lost in your eyes. I've always said you have to own strong opinions or be prepared to admit it when you were wrong. To have made the analogy I did is wrong. I can't ask forgiveness so I won't but that's not the point - the point is to own when you upset people and accept that it was wrong to do so.

It's interesting isn't it. I work with two couples in my job (both met a work and have stayed together) in a small department of 16 and they go out of their way to avoid this sort of 'favouritism'. They go out of their way to remain neutral on their partners' decisions/suggestions because they know this can make other people feel very uncomfortable/ganged up on/excluded. I have no idea what is said at home, but in the workplace they are as neutral as they can be - and so no one feels it's a issue.

If Joanne and Karen were calling out about Greg or Daisy, I can get that. But surely they can see it isn't appropriate to do this for their family? Clearly they are biased, so their comments look silly; and it creates an atmosphere with the other contestants.

If they were in my workplace, someone would take them aside and tell them (nicely) to grow up.

No need to ask forgiveness or apologise kat and I don't consider you to be a "bad guy". I just didn't want the thing to escalate further than it had done already, so I thought it best for me to duck out altogether.

All credit to you though, for taking the time and trouble to build bridges. I can see you feel passionately about it but my instinct is always to try to see the programme for what it is - pure entertainment - and not to look for things (either hidden or obvious) to interpret along any particular line or agenda.

Just instead love the glorious silliness and over-the-top flamboyance of it all, for that is after all what Strictly is all about!

Honestly, though I disagree with what you are saying about Jo and Karen, it would be impossible to take offence with you after such an generous explanation as this!

Agreed with others, no need to apologise at all. I'm sorry if my posts were unnecessarily derisory towards you and your opinions.

I would agree that there's a element of clique behaviour, but just not in any sort of malicious way.

Its a bit silly shouting undermarked for 37 point given out of 40 points available

what were they wanting? 11, 12, 15s from each judge

I could understand if they had been given 6 or 7 from each judge

it made them look silly, childish and down right insulting to the other couples

I can understand that - but I suppose the people element does interest me too. I guess I get bogged down in what I consider fair as well. I keep telling my mum every year I tell myself I'll keep detatched and every year I end up over-invested. I guess I get carried away with arguing too.

I agree, it didnt look good and I like Joanne and Karen so was very surprised by it. As others have said 37 is an excellent score for Louise and Kevin, it wasnt a 40

I could argee with that and sometimes i think there can be a fine line between 'go team/bro/hubbie' and not thinking about others outside of that. Inadvertant offence so to speak I think Kev was a bit guilty of that defending/praising his sister's jive chereography but by making unhelpful comparisons with Ailona's that inadvertantly further triggered her.

If I learnt one thing in the deepest darkest recesses of You Tube is that it's easy to live in your own bubble and not really see much outside it.

Maybe tell that to all the Danny fans on this forum

Its not about Danny, Ed, Rob or any other celebs fans

they are not on TV, Joanne and Karen are

If the argument is that it's ridiculous to claim anything scoring 37 and above is undermarked then it applies to everyone, on tv or not.

Brendan IS A PART of the GROUP when he shouts "undermarked", because when he shouts it, more follow him in that direct moment and they shout it as a collective group lots of the time. Sometimes Brendan does it on his own, sometimes Brendan and Anton do it together, sometimes others join them when they start, the numbers and the Pros doing it can vary. The POINT IS, it's not just the Cliftons that do this act of behaviour which has offended so many people. The Cliftons have done this with others too, not just Joanne or Karen alone for Kevin, they chanted messages, whooped and hollered with other Pros together. This is not NOT unique to the Cliftons, and their so called 'clique' doesn't actually exist! If you haven't witnessed others doing it on the series in all their gusto, then it's unfortunate you haven't in order to form a more rounded opinion of such scenario.

They are NO POWER GROUP. What power do they hold!? The audience have the power, and they have spoken enough times that Karen has never won, that Kevin has never won and that Joanne has never won. What threat are they? Aliona is the only Pro to have won twice, and she had not relatives, and didn't need them, because her individual celebs interested the audience. Just the same as the partners of Joanne, Kevin or Karen will interest the audience (or not) as individuals. There is not power! Just like Janette and Alijaz have no couple power, just like Brendan and Camilla had no couple power, just like Flavia and Vincent had no couple power, just like Ola and James had no couple power, just like any couple or relations on the show has had no power to dictate their journey on the show based on how many other Pros they are/were emotionally or biologically connected to. What is this imaginary power! The audience vote for individuals and they are never dictated to (history has shown us the public vote for whatever Ed, Chris, Tom or Harry they like through the process and sometimes right to the very end).

If people vote for them, they are entitled to, just like you are entitled to vote for you favoured Pros. The Cliftons are of no threat to you, the audience, or Strictly existence. The show is bigger than any Pro/judge, and the real actual power of the show is elsewhere.

For someone to call the Cliftons bullying in this context is ridiculous, and really takes away the true meaning of the word and the vicious intent behind real bullying (that not only hurts people, but can ruin their lives). It's just ridiculous! It's bias/projection (or both) gone mad to throw this term at this situation! If the Cliftons as individuals offend you, then just say they do. Don't use the cover of pretending what happens with the Pros in that area (on numerous occasions over the years with varying 'culprits' ) offends you. If they've said something or acted in a way that deserves true uproar then I'd fully understand, but this is so petty. I don't even care for the Cliftons, but they don't deserve such an accusation within this context.

Did someone use the term bullying? If so they need to go out into the real world and observe real bullying.

I thought the two of them looked daft chanting and would have done Kevin no favours at all but it was as far from bullying as shit is from sweets.

Ok - but read the later posts and you'll see I've seen that and apologised for it. See it's not just the Clifton's that get carried away and lose the plot. I tripped up on Godwin's Law in spirit and I'm sorry. However I do wish that you'd see a group of people who aren't related chanting under-marked is a different kettle of fish to a group that are doing it is. It's clique-ism - and although relatively harmless I suppose it's insentive and silly and it makes them look like entitled arses.

Generally speaking, I don't buy into the Clifton dislike around here. They're not my favourite professionals because they are both a bit twee and I don't like twee. But the show probably needs a couple of twee pros to make that section of viewers happy who aren't snarky like me and don't see twee, but rather kindness and sweetness. All's cool with me and the Cliftons.

I don't much get into who dislikes whom either, because it always seems to me that everyone is mostly getting on like a house on fire - nitpicking to find some minor conflict is too much effort for me.

All that said, even I noticed the undermarking shouts on Saturday and thought, "Blimey. How ridiculous can you get? The dance got 37 points." I think those who were shouting it made themselves look silly. They should not do that again.

THANK you!

That's the point people are missing. Brendan and Co. like to do this for a lot of people. They tend to do it to boost the morale of some of the celebs further down on the table.

Jo and Karen only do it for family members, and it makes it feel a lot more factional than what the other pros have been doing. It lacks the feel of camaraderie that the shouting has from the other pros.

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't call it bullying, but I would call it thoroughly classless.

Is this right? In the sense of is it true? as opposed to would it be right if true?

It's quite a bold statement

I could be wrong, but usually when it's the other kind of "undermarked" yelling, it tends to be a huge crowd so maybe they're lost in the chaos.

But it's funny how when they do it for Kevin and whoever he's partnered with, it's fairly obvious because nobody else is doing it.

It kind of skews the impression when it sticks out like a sore thumb like that.

I think that's the issue - no other pros seemed to yell out 'under marked' for Louise and Kevin which left Jo and Karen's support very obvious.

That's a different question though. Jo and Karen seemed a bit high and larking about at the end of the show, reeling arm-in-arm. (I've watched it back now, finally.)

But Sock seems to say they only ever call for Kevin to be given higher marks, and that's a big assertion.

Oh, I got you wrong. I thought you meant Jo and Karen only ever cheered for Kevin (and none of the others) but you mean that they alone cheer for him??

I give up!! I'm confusing myself now and, honestly, having watched it back, I'm surprised that two demob happy women have caused such a long debate.

The post in question stated that Jo & Karen only 'demonstrate' about undermarking on behalf of Louise & Kevin - hence never do so on behalf of other couples. Quite how anyone can prove the veracity of that is anyone's guess.