And I can't see how it benefits the viewers or charities to favour rubbish dancers in a dance show, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't believe the public vote always reflects directly who's popular anyway: it's as much about who danced well that night - which is as it should be, who is where on the leader board, & who is perceived to be at risk. Often the public don't vote for people who are highly praised by the judges because they believe they're safe. I don't see why Penny wouldn't be popular - she came across as a nice person. And Gabby may have been popular too - she wasn't in it long enough to be able to tell.

The show isn't promoted as being purely consumer-driven, but a combination of professional & public opinion.
I think it gets the balance right - even though I don't always agree with the results.

And why does the consumer favour less good dancers anyway. It's a uniquely British trait to be a fan of mediocrity & I'll never understand it.

Whatever voting system is used where money is involved it is FRAUD after a certain point. Judges voting somebody off if they weren't bottom is fraud commited against anybody who voted for that person. If Judges don't get a say then there comes a point in the evening when voting for the bottom person cannot affect the result and it is taking money by false pretences. Reality TV is a scam it's bad enough when commercial organisations are doing it but the BBC is meant to be public service not public swindle.

Yet people still vote. They know the rules of this show and they have done for nearly three months.

Were you aware the judges had the final decision this week ?

I'm not participating in this thread because Gethin has gone out (although I'm gutted) I just feel that at this stage that ONLY the public vote should count. This doesn't loose the money raised for charity and if someone is more popular than your favourite then that's tough. If and I say if, the most popular contestant has gone then that is NOT right or fair. When the show reaches semi stage Judges votes shouldn't count, like final night.

Watching XFactor last night and having the winner decided on public vote only made it much better and fairer, as did last weeks semi stage.
Last edited by Cassie : 16-12-2007 at 16:46

That's the whole point of reality TV getting people to vote. For the BBC that's plain wrong they already get paid by nearly every household in the land and should operate within that budget. I've no objection to programs like SCD just take the money element out of it and use their website for voting. If the BBC are so interested in CIN then an invitation can be made to donate the whole 25p.

Wrong. It's not fraud. They inform you beforehand that there will be a bottom 2 - it's not fraud if you know EXACTLY what is going to happen, yet still vote.

Now if there was clear directions given out that the judges may have already decided who goes through and your vote is incidental and don't count for anything then I would agree with you but they DON'T. I've never voted for anything reality/gambling show in my life including SCD. I like the dancing but hate the scam.

La Boheme - it's fine that we disagree - I'd never want to impose my opinion on someone else - it's one of the things that made me angry about the situation after all.

For what it's worth though, I don't think the British public endorse mediocrity over talent, but they do tend to vote with their hearts. What makes someone your favorite is as individual as you are and rightly so. I just hate the thought of being told who I should and shouldn't vote for by someone else

I have never endorsed being told whom to vote for - I'd never let anyone do that to me.

I agree it's fine to disagree. This is a discussion forum after all. Personally my heart will always be with the best dancers.

Last year Louisa was my favourite - but I voted for Mark to win because he was better, even though I didn't particularly warm to him as a person.

But having a dance off means that you ARE being told who you should vote for.

It's like going into a shop and being told "you can't have that one because WE don't think it's right for you".

Yes, if you have a public vote you run the risk of some less good dancers going further than you think they should, but surely it's worse to be told "our judgement IS better than yours, so our will be done".

I do understand that you personally vote according to what you see as the most important criterion, I just think it would be fairer if everyone else was allowed to - without somebody else telling them what that ought to be.

[quote=mintchocchip;20150857]What headlines on Digitalspy looking for sympathy?

QUOTE]

Sorry been busy apparently its christmas and people want presents darn it!


http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/strictly...tly-final.html

Strictly Come Dancing producers are worried that Matt Di Angelo has become too distracted to perform well in tonight's semi-final.

The actor is believed to be furious after reading a newspaper report which claimed that the long-term boyfriend of his dance partner Flavia Cacace had insulted him.

Responding to rumours of a romance between Matt and his girlfriend, Flavia's partner Vincent Simone reportedly said: "Matt is a little boy who has no idea. He's a lot uglier than me and nowhere near as good a dancer."

Insiders have claimed that Matt kicked a wall and ranted about Vincent's comments in a rehearsal this week.

A show source told the Daily Star: "We're worried this will affect his performance. He needs to stay focused to have any chance of staying in until the end."

That to me just said it all when it was aired Saturday

Did you see the source of that article? And some of the other total tosh that the same person has written? (Much of which was subsequently proved untrue)

It was a load of tosh, and the person involved has been writing tosh like that for weeks about all the competitors.

i totally believe it was utter tosh but for it to be placed out there on the saturday to me is suspect.

Suspect in terms of BBC or in general? In terms of BBC, doubt they have any say in the matter at all. In terms of general: the papers and DS want as many hits as possible (and let's face it, if Matt had a tantrum about that article it would've happened ages ago) and so they're always going to save up headlines like that for when it will cause the most fuss. I doubt they give a toss who went out, but a headline about semifinalist who had a metldown last week apparently falling apart again is a goldmine far as they are concerned, however little truth it may contain and however irrelevant it is given that any reaction probably happened ages before the semis.