So far this series I think those voted off have been about right, except in the case of Spoony and Ola, but surely it is not fair to the competion to have people voting all the week and not just voting on the performance on the night.

I don't see the point of opening the voting lines a week before the performance

Not really fair, but it means more money for children in need and that's the whole point of SCD

Simple..... MON£Y !!!

Precisely.

I thought that SCD was to pick the best at dancing.

How naive you are, little one

I can't believe the whole competition is a sham.

If they were competing for a dance contract or whatever the equivalent would be to the stage role in "Maria?" or the recording contract in "X Factor", then yeah it would be unfair.

But they're not.

SCD is a dance competion and I get royally annoyed when people say "but the dancing isn't important!" - of course it darn well is. But it's also about personality, popularity, and you can't get away from the fact that some people will vote for certain dancers or certain celebrities if the dancers involved sat in the middle of the floor and pulled faces for a minute and a half. And you also can't get away from the fact that one of its goals is to raise money for Children in Need.

So I don't see the problem with all week voting.

Someone very rich could spend 24/7 voting for someone who did not merit it.

But they'd still be giving money to charity in the process.

Yep. But someone very rich is unlikely to be that wasteful. And a lot of money would go to children in need.

I think it'd be a lot more predictable - maybe fairer... but don't miss the point of the show. No one is competing for a recording deal or anything - it's supposed to be entertainment which brings ballroom dancing to a wider audience and incidentally raises money for a good cause. I know I'm a rich one to talk, but it not a programme that needs to be taken that seriously... it's supposed to be fun.

Part of the fun is the unpredictability and the fact (and worry!) that some people will do the sympathy vote or the personality vote. Sometimes it means good dancers go out early - Spoony is a case in point. Sometimes it means not great but very entertaining people stay in for longer - Bill Turnbull for example.

If it were _just_ a dance competition, ignoring the personality aspects/personal growth aspects/who'se improved the most etc (look at dear ole Goughie falling in love with dancing last year) it might as well be "Come Dancing" with 4 judges & no phone vote.

I think people should vote mostly on dancing, but it simply isn't that kind of programme, and let's face it, the great British public aren't qualified to vote if it WAS 100% dancing.

There are a LOT of people who watch it who wouldn't bother if they couldn't have some sort of say, and I don't doubt that the fact people who weren't actively interested in ballroom dancing WERE interested in having a say about celebs learning it has brought ballroom dancing to a far wider audience.

It ain't perfect, and sometimes it stinks. But I think it's better this way round (IMO).
Last edited by sarah-flute : 05-11-2006 at 21:45

It's understandable though.

The producer for CIN will have collaborated with the one for SCD and the "tie-in" elements between the two programmes is always the same. The principle objective of whoever produces CIN is to get "their show" to produce more cash than last year and they'll use every opportunity to add to the total raised.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Unfortunately, the "advance" voting is a useful form of additional income, however "marginal" compared to other sources.
The fact that it can"skew" the results of what for some, particularly the competitors and a few people on here, is supposed to be a ballroom dancing competition is of no consequence when the "but it's for charity" card is played.

Of course the same thing happens each year, so it's hardly news, but it does underline the fact that SCD is 50% a popularity contest and it does seem to make all the comments of; "who did what better than who/no I don't think so/ you're saying nasty things about our favourite/we need new judges" on here, a complete waste of time. But if people enjoy doing it, why shouldn't they?

Well, if this is fair cos it's for CIN, then what's the point of criticising the judges for their lack of professionalism and consistency? They can do as they please if that's the case. Afterall, the celebs are not competing for a stage role, for example!


PS: I believe Jill Halfpenny got her West End stage gig as a direct result of her performance on SCD!
Last edited by pretty : 05-11-2006 at 21:49

It's fair. It is for charity..and most people vote on the night.

I would be amazed if multi millionaires spent all time voting for their fav's in a week. And if they do..so what? It's for CIN.

The judges are supposed to be there, IMO and as I understand it, basically to make up for the fact that we public don't in general have a tiny clue about dancing. So it makes sense it's 50% people who have some idea what the're talking about (though some may say that's debatable) otherwise it would just be one big popularity contest and easily as dull to most as if it was 100% dancing and we had no say. It's a balance.

Like I say, it ain't perfect, it doesn't always work, and sometimes it stinks. But it ain't bad either compared to some of the shows out there.
Last edited by sarah-flute : 05-11-2006 at 21:52

Also because she was exceedingly talented - just winning would not have got her that role. And if anyone honestly thinks it's unfair that she won...? Then I think they need their head examining.

What on earth are you on about? Who on here has questioned her dancing skills?

I totally agree, if its all just about a charity then why do the pro's and the amateurs bother so much, and why do the judges care so much. But of course when its for a charity like CIN you dare not criticise how it can be unfair.

It is my biggest bug bear with this (and they used to do it with Fame Accademy too, so it isn't just that the Beeb are kind and generous for Charity!)

They seem to want the competition to be about the dancing and having the best dancer win, but then exhort you to vote for your favourite as soon as the results show is over, and through the week on ITT. If it is purely about the performance then you are either voting in retrospect or in advance and that cannot be right.

It would be interesting to know what the proportion of the voting is, split between before and after the dancing.

Surely, there would be a way to have the lines open during the week - but not to vote for the dancers but other things? Say, choose the colour for Anton's samba outfit, or pick the music for a routine (heck, the music choices couldn't be any worse doing it that way!). that kind of thing?

Who said it's "just" about a charity??

Of course the pros want to win - they're all very competitive AND it's good publicity for them. Plus, they enjoy it, or seem to most of the time.

And it's natural that people who are at the top of their field, as many of the celebs are or have been, will be competitive and want to win anyway.

But it is a charity event, and saying "oh it's unfair" loses sight (IMO) of the fact that they're competing (however sincerely) for a silver glitterball with pink writing. It's entertainment, and not a 100% serious all-about-the-fancing competition.


You said that all week voting was unfair and then when I said they're not competing for anything, you commented that Jill got a job through SCD. In what way is it unfair that she got a job? She learned to dance, and it so happened she was great at it. It was luck, but it wasn't unfair.

I don't see what unfair voting has to do with Jill, in the first instance, because she was amazing and deserved to win, and I don't think one person getting a job off the back of SCD out of 3 entire series suggests it's some really great way of getting a job.

But hey.

You don't have to agree with me, but I think the all week voting is fine. Not perfect, but it serves its purpose - letting people feel they have their say, and raising money.

If you don't agree, that's fine, it doesn't bother me.

Mindyann: I can't believe they'd get nearly the number of people voting for costumes or music that they would for keeping their favourites in. Human nature... most people wouldn't care enough.

Maybe it makes it biased towards personaility, but surely we would be anyway - as a whole, the viewers aren't that knowledgeable about dance, and even those who are are sometimes blinded by other issues. So that's what the judges are there for, to make sure that it is at least half a dance programme, and to educate the viewer so that they are better equipped (those who care) to vote on dance ability.
Last edited by sarah-flute : 05-11-2006 at 22:04

Err.. anyone on here when "cornered" over a point of contention in their post.

I think it would be fairer if the lines were opened at the end of the programme to vote for the couple to be eliminated next week! That way, the couple with the lowest votes would be eliminated the following week, and could do the dance they have learned all week as their farewell dance.

D'you mean a vote out rather than a vote in, Holly? I'm a bit confused. Sorry.

Oh diddums

FYI, I was just commenting that if we all accept that SCD is just a bit of light entertainment and to raise money for charity and therefore the early opening of the voting lines is acceptable, why all the hoo haa about the judges' being unfair? It shouldn't matter. It's all for charity!


BTW, Jill Halfpenny was a worthy winner but the fact of the matter is that her exposure on SCD got her her West End gig! I would imagine a lot of the celebs who go on SCD also do so for a bit of exposure.