True, I think people would still vote regardless (plenty vote for X-factor and that is just the Simon Cowell Charity Fund), however, I think probably people vote more because of the CIN slant - so instead of just voting once, they will vote a 2 or 3 times.

How is it a conflict of interest ? It's for CHARITY, does it matter ?! Is anyone saying they *shouldn't* use a World famous singer to try and raise as much money as possible for needy children ? All becuase of a dance show ?!?

Does it matter? No it doesn't if you think the other competitors who are "bustin a gut" are wastin' their time, "cos it's for charity."

Actually, it isn't for charity, it is promoted by the BBC as a serious competition. It just so happens as an incidental benefit some of the "phone vote" money goes to CIN.

The "charity" aspect is mentioned time and time again by the Emma Bunton supporters whenever the wisdom of letting one of the competitors do a charity video for CIN and then keep promoting her and it on both SCD programmes, thus removing any notion that the competition is a "level playing field" for all competitors.

Actually it isn't for a "Competition" or for "Charity" It's all about beating ITV on "ratings" every Saturday night.

Errr.....I wasn't talking about the show, I was takling about the Children In Need charity single.

If using one of the contestants, who just happens to have been one of the most famous singers in the World at one point, raises a heap of money for charity then that can only be a good thing.

A don't know about Emma but I'm still upset that Darren wheeled his golf trolley across a putting green on the Heritage golf course no less!

That's like running across an expensively sprung ballroom dance floor in football boots.

But can you not understand as I tried explain at the commencement of my post that if you want to respect SCD as any sort of "competition" you have to separate the two?

But would who is singing the CIN single make any difference to the amount of money raised and the number sold? Do people buy charity singles based on who is singing them, or is it for the cause?
If you buy the CIN single would you buy it anyway regardless of who is singing it?

Ahh!
Reminds me of an incident a few years ago when playing golf with a friend, he had his young son who was about nine "caddying" for him. He'd been as good as gold all the way round 'til about the fifteenth, as it is a long time to be out for kids at that age.
We were putting out a couple of four-footers on that green when my friend turned to see his son standing right behind him... with the trolley!

Whoops!

There could have been "a letter" couldn't there?

Considering the quality of some of the singles put out for "charity" in the past, it would appear that the public will buy "anything," sung by "anyone."

So no reason why this one shouldn't do just as well, eh?

Can you not understand that it does not matter so long as money is raised for charity ? What is more important to you ?

As much as I love how seroiusly the show is taken, it is just a Saturday night entertainment show. No money is exhanging hands with the winner, no future contracts. It's a bit of fun. If you can raise money for charity off of that, then that's fanatastic.

Err..
it's a bit "wood and trees" isn't it?

It isn't important to me at all, but I think it's quite important to the professionals, as to "win" this will add a great deal to their "market value" as it will the judges, who are already doing very nicely.

It helps the celebrities as it did Jill Halfpenny last year. I'm not saying she wouldn't have got the part in the show without it, but it certainly helped raise her profile.

As it will with all "celebrities."
The sports personalities will get added dates for "after dinner speaking engagements" on the back of this.

The "soap stars" will get better offers for pantomimes and other acting roles.

Emma Bunton will be "laughing all the way to the bank" and who can blame her?

As I've gone to great pains to explain, for the viewers it's just a bit of fun, but for those involved the "exposure" is a serious "career opportunity."

That's nothing to do with charity.

The charity as I've said before, though a worthy cause has never ever been the prime motive for the show's existence.

It's just incidental.

I think they are good, not great but good. The partnership is not the sane as the one he had with Jill Halfpenny which was really good, He's always been a great dancer and a good teacher, Mr consistent in fact, but he must be a bit over-excited with baby bunton didn't he kiss her boobs - so out of character ( I hope Lilya gave him a good slap for that)

Sorry Darren I really don't think you will be lifting the crown again this year.

"You'd have to have had a heart of stone not to laugh, wouldn't you?"

Famous Singers?

Emma Bunton?

Garlic Bread?

Yes! She's up there with Billie Holiday, Sarah Vaughan, Ella Fitzgerald, Maria Callas and so many more.

Sing?

She couldn't sing then and can't sing now.

(laughing)

I've nothing against Emma in terms of SCD (although she hasn't "wowed" me yet) but I'm in total agreement with DR here, she's never going to make into the "great female vocalists" hall of fame.

Or at least not until Patsy Palmer gets a role with the RSC playing Lady Macbeth........
Last edited by dancingbearbear : 09-11-2006 at 16:57

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that on the results show when they are down to the last two couples ,it is always the couple on the left hand side that leave the show! it has happened on every show of this series -will be watching on saturday with interest.

That actually was mentioned in an earlier series - and the night it was mentioned the opposite happened. Must admit tho I kinda knew it would be Anton and Jan on Saturday purely because of where they were standing.

I guess, if you think about it, it's 50-50 and while it's a strange coincidence that it happens a lot, it IS quite possible it's simply that, a coincidence.

I wonder how they decide who stands on which spot, or if it's just to do with where they come from in the ranks of celebs lined up under the lights.

Er, I just don't think Emma will win at the end of the day - so I'm not really fussed about the single.

At the end of the day Emma is doing the show to raise her profile and boost a flagging career - like most of the celebs who do reality TV programmmes

I would have thought that with some of the others before, but the bunch we have this time on the whole don't seem to have flagging careers - Tarbie and cry baby bunton are probably the exception

I really, really, think we could see Emma and Darren finish 5th or 6th and for it to be called a "shock" exit - a shock to everyone except the fans that is.

Don't think Tarby has a problem, he's made his money over the last forty years, still much in demand as an after dinner speaker. Probabably only works when it suits him.
Although at the time constantly on TV, he was the main act at my firm's "do" in 1971 at the Adelphi Hotel in Liverpool. If he's been doing those sort of "private" appearances for what it cost for thirty odd years, he won't be hard up.

Please don't let's start all this again The name calling etc. It is not possible at this stage to say who will finish where, it is just what individual people "hope". I actually think it would be a shock to many genuine fans and members of the public, if Emma were to finish 6th, as she has genuine dance ability, is a good performer and has a good rapport with her teacher, facts which some people are determined to ignore unfortunately.

She is not my favourite in the competition, but I and I know many others were rather hoping all the pettiness had died a death now, but obviously not. To say only her and Tarbuck need the career boost is blatantly ridiculous. How many people have heard of the soap actresses on the show? They are doing it as they are currently unemployed having left the soap they were in, the retired sportsmen do it to raise their profile in the hope of becoming media pundits etc. It is in ALL their interests to raise their profiles, not just one or two. And why shouldn't they, in all honesty?

Yes Emma's "rapport" is so "good" the big "bust up" which was reported in the paper wasn't shown on SCDT2 like Georgina's, which was done to death.
Just a "quick flash" of the headlines in the paper. Still Georgina wasn't as important was she?

More BBC "spin."

"There you go, weve covered it and no damage done and no one can accuse us of favouritism can they? Her CIN image will be OK!"

Of those I've seen, apart from Georgina she's had the least "connection" with her partner, certainly not as good as the rest still in the competition at the moment.


Oh and Emma didn't "invite" anyone, the BBC will have done it all. She's just a performer, not a naffin' producer.

Depends if you think that there is any need to respond to irrationality -its not human nature to look for conspiracy theories to explain the otherwise obvious. If you are right and people are adding 2 and 3 to make 74 you can't respond to it because its a bizarre belief which assumes the judges are wrong, the person claiming it has a better idea of what 2 and 3 add up to and that the link that they have discovered between two unconnected factors expalins an inconsistency that didn't exist in the first place. By this dubious logic anyone associated with the BBC would have to be excluded from SCD - which would mean no show as its populated by present and ex BBC people. The BBC could have fiendish motives with all of them - have you seen Eastenders' poor ratings or do you know what Carol has lined up, what Ray is doing for the BBC or the ratings for Question of Sport. ???

There is no need for explanations of why Emma is staying. She's better than almost everyone and if she improves ought to be in the final with a story of how she got better. Ray and Carol are good but not as good. Louisa is as good sometimes but usually not. Mark is very good but he was better thanthe finished Darren product in week one , probably won't get much better and will end up with no story. The others are due out soon because at some point you can't survive on the basis that your partner looks good enough for people not to notice you. .

I do love this board when I read some of the nonsense


If you can't see how these factors are "connected" then There's no point in joining in this conversation.


Congratulations!
You win today's prize for the "Best sweeping statement used in a pathetic attempt to justify an opinion."

as Harry Hill would say

Yeah!