But why should he? He has as much chance of winning this if his supporters keep voting him in, right?

It's just the way it goes, at the end of the day it's not so much of who's the best dancer but who has the most fans/supporters/or even those voting for a laugh group.

Just look what happened to C Parker, still todate the worst dancer on SCD history YET got to the finals!!!

So Sargent getting to the finals is not inconceivable, in fact I rather he wins than Healy or whoever else.....then it will teach the producers not to be greedy & put it down to judges decision next time.

John is very much in control for his smug behaviour

I really don't understand the judges and others who are snarling at JS's continued run on the show.

When the series starts they rightly recruit a varied mix of young and old, male and female, from all sorts of backgrounds. If these idiot judges wanted pure dancing ability, then why didn't the BBC just enlist a bunch of young athletes in their twenties?

Despite JS's obvious dancing deficiencies, this is almost discrimination now. If a 64 year old who's seen fitter days isn't able to win the show, then why ask him on it in the first place?

I am in no doubt that JS is "delight" he did the after dinner speech at a do I attended a few years ago, but then he was humble and witty, in Strictly, he is pompus, arrogant and quite adept at twisting words. After all he is a retired political correspondent and has spent numerous years around the spin doctors in Parliament, if none of that has rubbed off on him I'd be suprised,

He does not dance, he plods, he barely scrapes through a routine, and mostly because Kristina is dancing rings round him to hide his "moves". Also her choreography has been cleverly devised to cover his flaws.

If there was any justice, he would have been gone by week 4, but this is not the case - there is a very real chance that we will have a dance off between the likes of Austin and Tom long before it's due if JS doesn't shuffle off before long.

I can't tell you how little time I have for people who are "fans/supporters" on reality TV shows - I think that whole mindset is deeply tragic.

Personally, I wouldn't want to win or even go far in a dance competition if I was no good & it was at the expense of better dancers. I've got too much self-respect.

It's ridiculous to say it's not about the best dancer but those with the most fans. Initially it's good to have a wide range of abilities - but given that it is a dance competition not just a reality TV show - if the best dancers don't get to the final, there's really no point in doing it at all.

Who are these people find John more "entertaining" to watch than Cherie? Personally I think Cherie's been far more interesting.

The British obsession with mediocrity is something I will never understand.

Mr Plod leads to duel between Mr Smug and Mr Arrogant.

It isn't an obsession with mediocrity at all. It is a desire to put people who dare to enter a competition and then have the temerity to 'try too hard' and 'want to win' firmly in their place.

Same token as there's also no point in making the public to vote if they (judges & celebs) are gonna be up in arms in anger with the result they don't expect. Don't forget these votes are also what keeping those other celebs in.

Look I also agree John Sargent being kept in at the expense of better dancers is unfair but it's the voters who's at fault not JS & by right he should remain in the competition as people paid money through their votes to keep him in.

Well, he - and a number of the other contestants - didn't sign up for a competition where they start on a level playing field. When James was having his little to-do last night regarding the unfairness he didn't stop think it could technically be unfair that his partner had dancing advantages over other contestants. But that was fine and dandy by him, although Kristina could have quite easilly said something about that in the preceeding weeks.

If, on week one Tom and Austin and Rachel were running up and down the touchline warming up, John was still back in the changing room trying to find his kit.

The contestants are garnered from a range of professions with a varying degree of fitness and aptitute but all with the one hope of the producers - that people will become embroiled enough in their 'story' to watch week on week. Are they upset because John is still in and pulling in floating voters every week - course not. In the mine field that is the early Saturday night programme scheduling he is gold for them.

That is the obsession with mediocrity - to think that there's something wrong with trying or wanting to win. What's so bad about that? They'd rather see people who aren't good & don't care.

It's the nature of this country to praise mediocrity and abhor excellence. An example is that clever children at school are labelled "swots" or worse by the less intelligent children.
The people voting for Sarge John are probably ones who find a kindred spirit in Johnny and his lack of ability.

I would feel that at least he'd tried.

Whereas now he's trying to stay in by exploiting the anti-Judge vote and so on.

"Control" is a red herring. Sure, he doesn't control it; but he can certainly influence what happens, and does.


Which he's been happy to exploit.

I wonder how much John is genuinely trying to dance well and improve.

It's true. And it's really depressing...

why should he step down?

OK, where are the "topic police" demanding that this thread be merged with the others?

(And BTW he can't "step" down -- that would be too closely related to dancing...)

I actually think John is very arrogant - he is now so smug that he feels he can sit in the chair and read the paper for most of the day and then shuffle around for two minutes and be saved by the GBP. If I were a professional on the show, I would be well cheesed off if my partner sweated all week to learn a good routine, got good marks from the judges and then was beaten by the likes of John. I think James was very angry, and quite rightly so. John is astute enough to know that the more the judges are nasty to him, the more the public will feel sorry for him. Sorry but I have no intention of being taken in by his smugness.

A slightly odd and twisted way to voice your point. I very much doubt an affinity of mediocrity lists highly on the viewers mind. More likely is people's natural enjoyment at seeing the underdog succeed.

And what is wrong with wanting to see the unexpected, the unanticipated, a change in the script? Thank god we do, it's all too easy to hand the title to Little Miss Stevens, she who danced in a pop group for several years. What's the point of the competition if it's all so uniform?

At least your opinion isn't as highly strung as Christa's though. Now there is somebody who is clearly struggling to keep it together, lol.

Regrettaby, it appears that he can.

I want JS off, but feel that the smugness is intentionally "put on" to wind up the judges...

I agree. He knows how to manipulate the voters just like any of his political cronies...

Fact = public voted for John......THE PUBLIC.
Fact - he got more votes than Lisa or Cheri......

Thats the rules.....like them or love them.........deal with it.

If you had half the Strictly crew on your back just because you're doing what is asked of you, you'd probably get defensive and arrogant too.

Should he just sit there and take it like a dog? Damn no, good on him for ridiculing these hypocrites and standing his ground.

Hear Hear

So, by the same token why is John getting all the flak for wanting to stay in a 2 -tier 'competition' which he was approached and paid to take part in? He is not as good at the first tier of dancing as some of the other contestants, who work that ability - but he is streets ahead on the 2nd tier of public popularity. Why should he not work to his strengths?

Or it is OK to give him the sticker for 10th runner up, because he is the wrong age, shape and ability to be competitive?