No idea, as I said this was a decision made back when the show first started which hasn't, as I am aware, been challenged since due to the later decision that the BBC was exempt from that element of the Freedom of Information Act. They don't need to do anything else as they can trot out that exemption.

At the time the other reality TV shows with a public vote didn't exist I assume, I don't watch them so have no idea when IACGMOH started.

I don't remember there being any demand from viewers for the dance off. It was first introduced in series 4, randomly in the quarter final, to save Emma Bunton from elimination against Louisa Lytton, and was not popular at all. I don't think the judges demanded it, I think the producers did because they want as much control over the result as possible. Why would viewers want it? So people they haven't bothered to vote for can be dragged to the final? There have been more unpopular results with the DO than in series without it.

Whoever went out in the semi would've caused moans from some people, but at least there would've been one less excuse for them.

They started out without a dance off, then they introduced it because the silly public couldn't be trusted to make the 'right' decision, then they dropped it again (no issues during those years - all the 'right people' seemed to make it to the end), and then they brought it back, presumably to add some tension and excitement to the Sunday evening show. I don't remember the public demanding anything.

ETA: Dammit, Ellie. Again!!

The fact that there is a combination that keeps him out of the dance off, isn't much of an argument. Its not an answer to the point made - because that combination is very unlikely - which means the consequence is also unlikely, compared to the others. its irrelevant- because his high (over) marks meant the judges had an existing reason to save him anyway, against anyone. . And its irrelevant, because the bigger issue is in the scoreboard order as a whole. The marks are in an order , and individually such, as to not only keep Ore out of the dance off - but save him if he ends up there. .But what they also do, is to practically ensure that Claudia faces someone in the dance off, with an equal or superior mark, that can be used to excuse sending her home. If you mark the dances as many viewers and professionals would have, Claudia is far less likely to hit the bottom two, and would have had a superior marked dance - which would have made sending her home very controversial. Its not only Ore's inflated marks, but other people's low marks, that determines who gets to the final.

And if you change who gets to the final ,the whole storyline changes. Claudia has a better journey story than Ore, dances as good as anything that turns up, and a potentially far more vote friendly, and spectacular show dance. As it is, the judges can just continue to overmark Ore, praise what isn't there, repeat his journey story, as often as possible, and enough voters will believe what they are told, or find Louise and Danny unconvincing.

I pretty much agree with all of that - I certainly wasn't saying Ore deserved to be top of the board or that there was no manipulation going on - just pointing out that as long as there is one mathematical possibility (however remote) where he can end up in the DO and the others can escape it, the BBC are OK to get viewers to vote on it, legally speaking.

BiB exactly.

Had Claudia topped the public vote it would mean Louise would face the dance off instead, so perhaps they knew how much support Louise had at that point, making sure it was a tie for the bottom two just to ensure her vote counted for more.

The dance off was put in to stop the joke candidates surviving even on a residual vote, and because the vote displayed unacceptable biases . its meant to preserve the best of the viewers bottom two, and gives a chance to get rid of the Sergeants, Widdecombe's . Grants and Balls, if they are still coming high enough in the vote to survive a public vote elimination. its pointless having a dancing competition if the final ends up being between a joke candidate and one good dancer, or if one of the best goes home because they look different. .

The dance off problem only comes when the marking that produces the dance off fails to be consistent with comments , what the viewer sees, or what other informed markers would award, or when, what looks like unjustified hyping of some candidates, is reflected in decisions. . When the marks and dance off results ,coincidentally even, begin to follow the logic of who has other commitments before the series end, or that exclude them from the tour , or deal with a major PR problem for the show, its natural people will begin to wonder why the marks and outcome were as they were.

So in series 8 and 9, where there was no dance off, who was the joke contestant who reached the finals? Who was the best one who went home because they looked different? I don't remember anything in those two series that would justify bringing back the DO, the producers just wanted even more control over the result.

Awww, diddums. Oh dear, how sad, never mind. Claudia wasn't popular enough with the public to win Strictly. The 'overmarking' of Ore by the judges and 'praising what isn't there' is your opinion not fact (though you are entitled to that opinion), but you are insulting many millions of viewers' intelligence by the last BIB. The GBP know what they are doing, who they are voting for and why. They are not easily manipulated mindless numbskulls.
Ore's dances were up and down through the series- he had an average patch after the Jive for a couple of weeks. But then got back to form and was phenomenal in the final - where the best and most popular dancer on the night in the judges and public's opinion became the champion. WELL DONE STRICTLY CHAMPION ORE !!!!!!!

i sometimes think i'd need a diploma in advanced conspiracy and quantum logic in order to even start to understand just how deep the rabbit hole of seduction, manipulation and out right shenanigans is.

plug me back into the matrix.

and make me someone too important to be banned.

Just to play Devil's advocate here - in series eight - Widdy almost reached the quarter finals and Jimi Mistri got sent home earlier than he should have been and the first boot was Goldie.

In series nine though it seemed to make no difference at all atlhough the only contestant of mixed ethnicity was Chelsee who was too good. I don't think Johnny Ball ought to have been the first boot - ageism bid.

Of COURSE it doesn't

That was only in the semis AFTER the scores, he must have had a low vote to be in the do the previous week.


As for pollsters, yep, they sure are unreliable, but that's all the Beeb had an' all - there wasn't any secret poll that said anything else.

I pretty much agree with the rest of it.

It's funny to me how, depending on how the conspiracy theory swings, the judges use both overmarkimg and undermarking to ~fix it. Duffers get overmarked to encourage people to let them go on a high, ringers are undermarked to inspire sympathy, yada, yada, yada.

Nothing about the SF was a fix. Ore woul have still been in the DO if the public didn't vote for him, especially with the tie and Claudia would have been safe if the public had voted for her. This desperate need to belittle Ore and explain why certain celebs votes didn't stand up the last two weeks is ridiculous.

Maybe the insesant and unpleasant articles and comments and abuse directed st him for the final week made a lot of people sympathetic so when he went and danced so wonderfully they were more inclined to vote for him.

Widdy stayed one week longer than Ed Balls stayed with a dance off. As to Jimmy and Goldie - look what happened in this series to Tameka and Melvin with the DO. At least in series 8 Michelle Williams hung on through several bottom twos without having to be saved by the judges.

The DO doesn't really help anything, it just moves the danger zone higher up the leaderboard and causes more annoyance among viewers, because they can speculate about wrong decisions by four judges rather than accepting a lower combined score (although I know some people will never accept anything whatever happens ).

So you wouldn't be bothered if you got 1% of the vote and the other 15 shared 99% between them?

Releasing percentages would be just as bad as releasing actual votes for those at the bottom.

It's also worth pointing out that Claudia without a DO may well have gone home at Blackpool and her fans would instead be cursing the names of Ed and Greg and their supporters instead.

Getting rid of it doesn't help anything either except increase the chances of losing someone good earlier - I'd rather have lost Michelle Williams than Jimi Minstry to be honest.

They gave the voting figures for SPOTY. Just a straight public vote from those names offered.

Semi final & final I cannot see how the percentages would hurt, and it might alleviate the fix claims.

Can you really see any one of the semi finalists on much under 20% of the vote?

That's why I said 'I get the celeb part - no one wants to have their unpopularity proven' - I understand that as a reason. It's bad enough seeing someone like Daisy repeatedly in the dance off, without her having to see numerical proof of how few votes she got as well.

I was only questioning the commercial sensitivity reason. I was not saying they should release the percentages, just saying that if they did it would not let any competitors know how much money they were making,

The thing is, if you're the type of person who screams fix because your fave goes out, you're probably going to be the type of person who won't believe any proof. So no matter how many voting numbers were released, if you believe the big bad judges, the producers and the Bbc are willing to risk the success of one of the biggest shows on television in order to conspire to stop your favourite winning, the chances are you'd still get tin foil hat conspiracies about why the voting percentages weren't reliable.

Odd thing is, I do not think the votes were necessarily rigged (anecdotal evidence of phone votes registering with someone other than the number you wanted are a technical issue). The BBC are very aware of how above board they have to appear, yet by withholding the numbers is does fuel the conspiracies.

This year it is the judges over marking and subsequent placement on the leader-board, plus the lack of critique for some, where for others they are slated for the same error that I question. Along with false claims of never danced before and throwing to the wolves those with a modicum of previous dancing.

Can't help feeling it was jolly sporting of Oti and Danny to go along with the conspiracy to fix a win for Joanne and Ore. I wonder if the BBC sent the boy's round or maybe it was written into their contracts that they should make two significant and visible errors in one of their routines on final's night.

Now you know that's silly, what is equally silly is denying that storylines are manipulated, the whole season long so that the PTB produce good viewing figures to ensure the continued success of the show.

From ridiculous music choices, ignoring faults that others are slated for , both under marking and over marking to manipulate the board and comments deliberately made to boost or undermine certain contestants to produce what ever story they feel is best that keeps the viewing figures up.

I am grateful for it in a way as I want the show to continue BUT I felt this season it was done with a very heavy hand and left me with a feeling that the final 3 were chosen almost in spite of the fact that the public are supposed to be deciding their winner.

The possibilities of less manipulation leading to a different 3 in the final and a generally less dissatisfication with Ore winning will always be there for me.

It's always been there though the show has been rocked by huge upsets over seemingly popular dancers leaving earlier than they should has boosted headlines for years.

I just felt the show manipulated results throughout the weeks a little too heavily.

People are fixated on the Ore win, on the night he didn't make mistakes and did more crowd pleasing dances, he won, fair play to him, it's the weeks leading up to that win that bother me. Not him winning on the night , which he did fair and square on the night, but he and all the final 3 could not have been there if the PTB had not been so heavy handed in their manipulation.

You can see I am conflicted. I want the show to be successful, but I fear this year sSCD lost a little too much of the feeling that the public were getting what they wanted.

I don't want to fall out with you Coppertop ( I like you ) But I disagree about manipulation. I agree that remarks and marks do not always seem to be given even handedly, but that goes for all contestants. Sometimes it's swings other times its roundabouts. I thought they were ridiculously generous to the model from Liverpool for example. I also thought they didn't give enough credit to Mark Benson or Mr Robinson ( name forgotten - it's late)

For me it doesn't suggest a conspiracy but simply that dance is subjective and this isn't a real competition so it isn't that important. Plus we don't get the same view as the judges and annoyingly the camera crew frequently cut off their all important feet.

It is precisely an answer to the (false) "point made", because the point made was "RE Ore manipulated into the final, he was placed top of the leader board with ties below. Mathematically it was not possible for him to be in the bottom 2".

That claim of mathematical impossibility was the only "fact" adduced to support the claim that Ore was "manipulated into the final". So it is relevant and effective to show it was not true.

The rest of your post is a similar conspiracy theory in which judge's marks aren't their genuine opinion of the dancing but instead are carefully calculated both to protect Ore and to eliminate Claudia.