If this was a horse race there would be a stewards enquiry.
If it was a fix on betting the bookies would refuse to pay out.
If the knighthood was awarded the highest bidder there would be a cash for honours enquiry.

How can we be sure that no vote fixing is going on? In every other form of race or endeavor, whenever there is an unusual pattern to the match or the vote there would be an investigation. With SCD there are no controls or anything to identify possible vote fixing.

After all the problems earlier in the year I don't think the Beab would be doing anything improper, itself. But that does not mean that some gambling syndicate is not manipulating the voting for its own ends. However, if they were, no-one would know.

Why am I concerned?

Just look at the results. We Know that the three of the four lowest places, according to the judges, - Kate, Kenny and Letitia were placed higher than Matt in the audience vote, because they were not in the dance off. We also know that Alesha must have been higher with the audience for the same reason (no surprise here though). The only people who could possibly have have had a lower audience vote than Matt were the three leaders after the judges scores. Of them, I think only John is a possibility .

This probably puts Matt in one of the bottom 2 or maybe 3 places, but he appears to be much more popular than that. A trawl through this forum shows him much more liked than that.

Is there anything untoward going on? We can't tell and will probably never Know.

To be honest M and F's dance wasn't very exciting and although he has his fans, the dance was quite forgettable especially in the wake of Gethin and Camilla's VW.

Therefore I reckon his bottom 2 status was just as blip

This happens every series - I don't think anything suspicious is going on.

If votes were rigged Kate would be in the bottom two!

I don't think Matt's fans realised he was vulnerable. He got a high mark but was still mid-table. When three couples share the same position at the top it masks the true positions lower down the table. Matt was third in marks but fifth in position. Being in the bottom two and being saved can only work for rather than against him. Unlike Penny, nobody has said any of his dances have been overmarked.

Middle table syndrome. It's happened in every series so far.

Basically, fans of the couples at the bottom vote like crazy to keep them in. Those in the middle/upper reaches don't think they have to obther too much as their favourites are safe.

So far in this series, only one couple (Brian and Karen) who have finished bottom with the judges have been voted off. This compares with 4 couples (from 11 couples voted off) in series four, 2 from 9 in series three, 4 from 7 in series two and 1 from 7 in series one.

Basically, if you are rubbish, you have more chance of staying in!

Not if you were betting that they would be voted off in the ninth Saturday. Betting is VERY big business.

How do you know that there aren't?


The only untoward thing that is going on is that the public are, for some strange reason, continuing to vote FOR Kate rather than FOR other more accomplished celebs. Blame the public not betting syndicates.

Unless figures are published for the viewer votes we will never know if it's being rigged or not. I'm getting suspicious too and wouldn't be surprised if there is something dodgy going on. I read somewhere (have no idea if it's true or not) that the amount of votes Kate is getting is like nothing the BBC have seen before. There was some worry that sabotage groups were at work here, that have apparently happened in the US, where people vote in huge numbers for the worst contestants in the hope of ruining the show.

The other theory is that it's possible it's not being rigged now- but it was before, ie. with all the new guidelines set down and tv companies being watched over scams, they have now had to play it by the book. Which suggest they didn't in the past and previous series winners didn't actually win at all!!

I'm just throwing those theories out there I'm not saying I believe them myself.

I can understand some letting their imaginations going wild, but sorry the idea in some smoky far eastern bar backroom sinister figures are plotting the down fall of Penny and Gabby purely to profit from some dodgy betting scheme involving a celebrity dance competition is taking it a bit too far.

I have to agree - there would be far more lucrative betting scams around.

I don`t think there is enough money to be made.......We have this discussion on th Big Brother forum every year. There are some very experienced punters who post on that forum and they have explained in great detail how the market works......In summary......There`s just not enough money to be made as most bookmakers will not allow massive bets on shows like SCD....ie you can`t place a bet for 100k let alone 1 million on the likes of Kate to win. I know nothing about the markets but from what I`v read, by people that do, it just is`t worth the effort or cost to fix shows like BB or SCD

After Hansie Cronje, nothing would surprise me.

Why doesn't the beeb tell us the audience votes ??????

What have they got to hide??????

With their record of phone in scams theres an awful smell to this one.

Theres no need for the actual No of votes, just tell us which order the "audience" placed the couples.

Will they do it??????? Never!!!!!! It stinks.

No show that uses a public vote will ever reveal the order.....If they did we would know the possible winner very early on in the series.This would effect the moral of the contestants;encourage tactical voting and influence the betting markets.

Well I thought that the vote this week was quite predictable. General public often are. Maybe I should have a bet on next week!

With all respect, I really don't understand why this is an issue. This theory is based on the premise that this is a show that relies on votes given by people who are expert in dance scoring, and who also only vote on dance expertise. It isn't. People watch SCD, and vote for it, for a multitude of different reasons, as has been discussed eternally on these forums.

Just beacuse some people on here like someone and thinks their dancing is great doesn't mean that they will, or should, be voted for by everyone. Just because someone sees a dancing skill in someone doesn't mean others see it (behold the judge's scoring - they're looking for diofferent things, as they frequently tell us, and score accordingly). Just because someone doesn't like a competitor's personality or attitude doesn't mean everyone else will feel the same way.

This forum contains only a tiny cross-section of those who watch SCD and vote, and as such is not necessarily a true representation. People (like myself!) who bother to come on here and keep up with the news, and are interested in other's opinions are probably of a different demographic of the bulk of those who vote - our enthusiasm extends to beyond the Saturday, Sunday and ITT shows!

Ladbrokes shops have a £25 stake limit for SCD bets.

I agree with you about this. SCD is a dancing competition, an entertainment show and a game involving risk and luck. If we knew the voting order it would remove one of the elements of the game.

How can this contest ever have a fair outcome when people can vote 24/7 for 6days. We could have thousands voting for Kate and Anton at this moment. The bottom 2 could be decided before they have even danced a step.

The only question I would like to know is:

What percentage of votes are cast for each celeb before they have even danced a step?

Why bother with the dancing at all - it is incidental. The hag with the thin lips says it every week "vote for yer favourite". What it should be is vote for the worst performance and only AFTER ALL the dances are finished. The object of the show is to make money with a 50% max percentage going to children in need.
Lets face it anybody who thinks, let alone votes, that Kate, the Kilt, the Dumpling on legs or even my favourite John(he'll never walk alone) are better dancers than some already departed obviously need an optician.
The voting is rigged to generate cash.

But this is NOT a dancing competition! Why do people insist on seeing it that way and get upset about it? If it was Come Dancing or the World Championships then it would be a dancing competition - this is a fun competition about dancing and personality and pitting oneself against the judges and humour and the one you fancy and lovely frocks and the quality of teaching and feeling sorry for someone and feeling proud of someone and whether you likes someone on the telly or not, and a zillion other things. It's a Saturday night show based around non-dancers trying to learn(and conversely pro-dancers trying to teach) a skill.

In threads in the last few days I've seen folks on here bemoaning the fact that some people have been kept in over others, yet have said things like "I'm so glad Matt is still in, he's gorgeous" and "I wanted Ian to win because he is dreamy". We all have our biases for all different reasons. If this was WW3 fair enough, but these are all people on a show for whatever their personal reasons - and all have a right to be there.

I know that this forum poll doesn't give a true idea of who's popular but it does show how much people's favourite's change from week to week.
Matt DiA did have a strong second place position after his smooth but it's slipping.
I think this is the same for the voting this year, it will change a lot from week to week. Very unpredictable

I wonder if there is ONE Swooning Army not two, ready to switch allegiance en masse very quickly from one young man Matt to the other young man Gethin -- in the process nearly wiping out Matt last Saturday.

If this were the case then neither can afford a bad dance.

Like I said the dancing is incidental. I don't vote - if I want to donate money to children in need Then direct means they get all of it. I already pay a licence for the government's mouthpiece they ain't getting any more.