I wasn't voting for John, but he did make me laugh. I'd have preferred him to have gone last week, so we could see all the possible "quality" contenders left to battle it out, but I wasn't unhappy to see him stay in. What the licence payer votes for, the licence payer should get.

BUT - I am wondering if the BBC production team and media spinners haven't made a massive blunder. THEY spun the "controversy" - what flippin' controversy? The judges marked him properly. The viewers voted - so far that it actually looked as though he might win. Had they left it alone, it would probably have petered out quicker, but still been funny and entertaining and left people with a feel good factor to remember. Now it's all gone to hell in a handcart.

It's not Big Brother. If you ever listen to anyone involved in the show praising SCD, they say it's the genuine lack of cynicism that makes it special. After this revolting spin-engineered fiasco, they'll have trouble saying it with a straight face in future. The BBC will never out-tabloid Big Brother, X Factor and the like, and nor should they try. Their "controversies" should be of an altogether less cynical nature if they want SCD's success to continue.

I honestly think they've made an almighty balls up.

-and theres loads of them

I agree with Claire, the opening poster.

I agreed with some aspects of your post Claire, but not that part.

John did nothing wrong. He danced, he got scored and people voted for him.

The judges, however, are a different story. They scored his dances and that should have been the end of it. But they relentlessly campaigned on ITT and during other interviews for the public to oust John. As judges, they should not be campaigning for or against certain couples - that represents a conflict of interest in my eyes.

Can you imagine if the judges of a real sporting contest did that? It would be considered highly unprofessional.

So how can viewers be expected to treat Strictly as a serious competition, when the judges behave in a manner that is not befitting of such an event?

I agree with the above comment, I said much the same on another thread and saying he thought he would win is arrogance in the extreme.

And all those who say there have always been popular "bad" dancers, they've never been as bad as John and they have been in show business. John is supposed to be a serious news reporter and I think he has lost all credibility in his own sphere now.

And no I haven't got anything against older people. I'm the same age as John but a darn sight fitter (and dare I say it slimmer) and if he had been much fitter and able to do the dances , there might have been a purpose in the public voting for him.

Whoosh.....

I couldn't agree with your post more, Claire. This is exactly how I have felt on the matter too.

In regards to the judges, I think opinions have been divided quite a bit on this. Seeing as everyone says this is a entertainment show and not a dancing show, I think it is unrealistic to expect the judges to show no form of opinion outside of the marking and comments. I certainly don't feel the judges were bullying John, just showing fustration at better dancers and dancers with more potential being kicked out a week early. Everyone knows what the judges are like and they have behaved similarly with the likes of Kate, Kenny and Chris. As dance enthusiasts, it is in their personal interests to see the best dancing each week. I don't think they really influence anyone anyway when they beg people to vote on dancing, if anything they attract the "stick two fingers up" brigade.

I consider Strictly as both.

But if we are going to include judges to provide entertainment value, then I see no reason why we can't have celebrities who do the same.

If they think there's been a lack of cynicism, they are (unfortunately) mistaken. There's been plenty of cynicism for years about the judges (and their alleged biases), the celebs (and their alleged motives and methods), and so on.

Great post - couldn't agree more.

The BBC has allowed - perhaps even encouraged - the judges to behave in an appalling manner. Arlene was backpedalling madly after the BBC announced John's departure, saying that she was sad and that the judges had actually been nice to him.

I honestly believe that this is a disaster for the credibility of SCD. Whether people believe that John was bullied into leaving or not, the fact remains that a huge number of people believe he was bullied. The repercussions are likely to be worse than if he had stayed in and won.

Absolutely.

I'm not even overly bothered about the judges mocking John and being exceptionally rude to him - all the couples are subjected to that.

It was the campaigning away from the show that I objected to. Demanding who the publc do and don't vote for. Totally unprofessional.

I think they must be realising now that they have gone too far this time. Everything they said on TV and radio was watched or listened to by millions of people. They can't deny what they said or how they said it.

Obviously John has now quit so seeing as this is a rational thread, what would those who are angry at the judges or feel that their behaviour was unacceptable, want done as a course of action - if any? I'm just interested really, I hope it doesn't get to the scale (which some people seem to be striving for) with the judges being kicked off the show.

That's not what I said at all. If John entertained you most, fair enough. My issue is with those who didn't vote FOR John because they liked him but used him as some sort of bizarre stand against something else. It's that attitude that has put a bitterness into this program.


Personally I have never seen them as campaigning against John. They've been asked who they think should leave and have given their honest answers. I think everyone on the show should be mature enough (and by and large are) to accept that the judges aren't going to like everyone's dancing and if they're asked they're going to give their honest opinion about it.

They could treat everyone with a bit more respect, make the criticism more positive, and stop whining about the public not voting the right way.

As I've said elsewhere, it's clear (from what is written on these forums) that some voters have had no idea who is in the show other than JS. The motive for voting in these cases appears to be some form of outrage inspired by a campaign in the media and fuelled by the comments from the judges in various places.

The public and the competitors are quite welcome to say they don't agree with the judges' score so I don't really see why the judges can't say they don't agree with the public.

Anyway, this assuming John's leaving has anything to do with the judges which imo it clearly doesn't. It seems to be a mixture of the press furor that he wasnt enjoying and the fact that he didn't really want to be seen as a serious contender to win it.

Also I suppose it doesn't help that he's booked on as a speaker on a cruise in two weeks as well which would have caused him major difficulties had he stayed.

Everone on here is talking about John - but what about Kristina. Imo she has bought someone wonderful to the show this year. Her professional dances with Brian have been magical - their group dance last week took a lot of attention away from James and Ola which showed how great they are. I hope what happened this year hasn't turned either of these professionals against appearing again. I feel saddened about what has happened - I voted for John and Kristina because I liked their dances - when Kristina did her split thing I went "wow" out loud for the first time this year. That it has come to this has left a bad taste in my mouth.