Everyone is biased. Brendan is biased. Journalists are biased. People who write history books are biased.

Expecting a panel of completely blank scientists who scientifically score contestants is just naive.

Also, the word entertaining value is something you can't scientifically quantify as it's a qualitative judgement, also the voting public are just downright unreliable.

All these variables make the programme what it is. I am watching SCD, I am not watching a ballroom dancing competition called Come Dancing.

Meg

A blind man on a galloping horse could see what the judges game was.

Very poor, shocking in fact.

And like or hate Ola she did say last year that the whole thing was fixed. I must admit, at that time, I thought it was sour grapes but I'm beginning to wonder after this series whether she was right. Last year they were desperate for Kellie to win but Jay had so much support, they failed.

It is obvious it has been fixed for years, just look at the times they saved Peter Andre when it was obvious he was crap.

Brendan's opinion is worth listening too - he's right in so many aspects. Also can't help but feel that he's saying this because it may be his last season...

if the Cliftons ever left and I'm not saying they should by any means since I like them but JJ has a massive anti them bias then they could actually do worse than hire him. He's not likable but when has that ever been a qualification a judge needed.

Or he's angling for a judge's position which actually I think he'd be good at.

Yes agreed. The two mediocre couples are through with one good couple. The fourth very good out because Darcy didn't feel enough connection. Crap. Just her personal opinion, ignoring the excellence of the actual footwork and performance. Claudia's QS was one of the best ever on Strictly. Ore's AT? What the hell was that all about? Posturing, static, supporting his partner who did all the work. 10s for that is not a credible piece of judging.

I think the use of the word 'fixed' is a mistake - at no point is the show 'fixed' because that suggests the BBC has a hand in the public vote too which it doesn't. If people asked whether the show was 'fixed' the BBC could truthfully respond 'no'.

My belief is it is manipulated though; the producers know the public vote and how to steer the certain couples towards the bottom two accordingly.

The last couple of weeks are the perfect example in my opinion - they place Danny and Oti at he top the board despite an obvious technique fail last week; Ore gets the same running position, dance and odd backing dances as Georgia last year when she dived in the bottom two whilst Rinder is deprived the chance of ballroom as he's chucked out perform his final, weaker, Latin. Danny's apparent weakness in the public vote is covered up so he doesn't experience a bounce this week and Ore can be saved without too much fuss over a clearly targeted Rinder.

Then this week Ore is placed top despite clear technical issues to protect him. They presumably knew Louise's core vote would propel her over Danny and Claudia, leaving both of them in trouble. That way they feasibly eliminate Claudia over Danny which most people, even Claudia fans, won't overly complain about in terms of the Dance Off rather than having to explain why they put someone through who's been in the Dance Off three times and twice in a row over someone who just recorded their first appearance... though it could be argued, with running order and judges scores, Claudia has been protected to a degree herself.

Have they damaged the final too much by having only one couple who has avoided the Dance Off all series? Possibly but probably not. Danny or Ire wouldn't be the first Dance Off victors to win the show after all.

So agree with your post. I know I should not be so sad or annoyed but I am.

Lots of years the one I wanted to win didn't and I could accept that. I also never really thought Claudia could win although I would have loved her to but she certainly should be in the final.

The judges' comments to her, not just Saturday, but through the series, especially Darcey's have been appalling. "Too short, too young, too immature, no emotion" blah blah blah, If she is too young why have her on the show? What is she meant to do about her height?

I thought she did show emotion and I actually loved her rhumba (I usually hate that dance) and thought she put her all into it and she definitely did look at AJ a lot. She is 19 with little life experience and not an actress so how easy is it to look emotional?

Also a lot is down to the person watching. I thought there was no passion whatsoever between Louise and Kevin in their AT but the judges seemed to think there was. If that's passion in their eyes well!!

I could accept Claudia not being in the final if I thought Louise or Ore did better on the night but they both made mistakes, Louise in both her dances and yet got a 10. Ore's AT was a disgrace. I honestly think with a couple of days training I could probably do that - walk a bit, pose a bit, lift your partner, kick a couple of times, walk a bit more, pose a bit more. Also he made a mistake, the judges mentioned it, yet still gave him three 10's, That is ridiculous. A 10 should be for a perfect dance. That wasn't an AT or a perfect whatever it was dance. What would they score for perfect a 12?

I do agree with a lot of what you said but Louis was not hyped I remember him being critised quite a lot for being un-expressive especially in his paso and samba/salsa. I was terrified at the semi-final stage that the judges were going to save Lisa Riley at his expense given half the chance. I think this is the problem with the judges actually - they seem to value entertainment over actual technical ability in a lot of cases especially the ability to ham it up for England and criticise things that aren't dancing but presentation i.e Craig's hand obsessive. I think replacing Len with two dance focused judges might help fix this and I wouldn't object to Darcey being shown the door.

And when he gets a partner who combines technical ability with being entertaining and isn't over-marked at the expense of someone I like better I'll root for him to do so but not before. If anyone else but Danny wins it'll be a travesty this year.

he'll never be a Judge on Strictly and I doubt very much if they will renew Brendan's contract next year especially after that blog

Brendan's complained about "judge bias" for almost as long as he's been part of the show, I doubt they care. I distinctly remember in Series 6 when he claimed the judges had a bias in favour of Tom and Austin and against Lisa and Rachel for one...

Only bias to Tom FYI.

He Brendan ever complained of the judges being biased in favour of one of his partners?

I think Darcy was genuinely shocked that Danny was in the bottom 2. I think they know the voting stats and he has been getting the votes up until now, so they didn't think he was in danger. IMO they overmarked Louise and Ore so that when they came up in the DO they were able to save them over Claudia.

Since the Peter Andre/Jamelia controversy they have had to justify their DO vote and they couldn't turn round and save Louise or Ore if they had marked them down in the actual show.

I am not sure it's a mass conspiracy, more about the way they feel as judges. They clearly like Ore and Louise and want them to go through so there's some emotion involved.

If they were to be technical and factual, there would be far less outcry (wasn't there a bit of a lift in Claudia's rumba? Didn't Kara get penalised for that? Didn't Ore just stand about a lot? How many AT steps did he actually do?)

Not biased per se but he has said before, on occasion, that he thinks that a dance that he did got overmarked. I think he just likes to run his mouth, bless him and doesn't always think it through (see : him yelling "UNDERMARKED" about Danny's salsa before the scores had even come in this week).

It amuses me a little to be honest seeing people saying he should be a judge like he wouldn't be ten times more controversial than the ones we already have.

At least he is more technically knowledgable than the most of them... specially Darci

Which is odd because I always felt they were biased against Tom in favour of Lisa and to some extent Rachel. They obviously wanted the two women in the final and we're prepared to do all they could to make it so.

Look forward to more of the same if a bloke wins this year. TPTB really get twitchy at two wins from either gender on the trot.

Wasn't Brendan a judge on the New Zealand DWTS alongside Craig a few years ago? Or, it could be more than a few years ago. I have a distinct memory of seeing a clip with Brendan giving a critique but I can't for the life of me remember when it was.

He will but regardless that is up to the public, nothing to do with the judges. One thing Brendan did say is that overall he thought Louise was better than Claudia through the series. Now, I'm all for the 'rules' but I'd rather a final of the three best (and I think they are...overall.

Arguably Danny wasn't as good as Claudia in the dance off, he went through. Greg was better than Claudia in her dance off, she went through.

It's a bit late to be calling foul because a favourite has gone when the exact same system and possible bias saved them previously.

Exactly.

Obviously he found out that he'd not Len's replacement and is venting …

Wonder if the BBC have found his replacement yet?

I think this largely is sour grapes, but mainly James' sour grapes.

Meg