I had to rescue from the 2nd page, there's been another outbreak of outrage-itis on the first page! 
Scd Does Not Rasise Money For Charity (Merged)
4 of 7
Originally Posted by Alli-F:
“I had to rescue from the 2nd page, there's been another outbreak of outrage-itis on the first page!”
“I had to rescue from the 2nd page, there's been another outbreak of outrage-itis on the first page!
”
Disgusted from'Tunbridge Wells' is having a great few days
In an article yesterday about John Sargeant the London Paper printed the following reader's comment...
Quote:
“What about the charity that misses on the windfall if he won?”
“What about the charity that misses on the windfall if he won?”
I really think the BBC should make a special announcement about this.
How can they have a £100,000 bill? Seems an awful lot of money. Anyway doesn't the money go to the company who monitor the lines?
How can they have a £100,000 bill? Seems an awful lot of money. Anyway doesn't the money go to the company who monitor the lines?
Originally Posted by Gill P:
“I really think the BBC should make a special announcement about this.
How can they have a £100,000 bill? Seems an awful lot of money. Anyway doesn't the money go to the company who monitor the lines?”
“I really think the BBC should make a special announcement about this.
How can they have a £100,000 bill? Seems an awful lot of money. Anyway doesn't the money go to the company who monitor the lines?”
It would certainly be a lot more sensible or logical for Bruce/Tess or Claudia to make an announcement on the shows about the non charity element of this year's programme. I am fed up of having to explain to people that Children in Need is not benefiting... but then again have you ever heard about the Beeb being sensible or logical?!
Excuse me... Sensible? Logical? What do they mean? 
(I was talking as though I were an employee of the BBC
)
(I was talking as though I were an employee of the BBC
)
Originally Posted by SaraV1308:
“It would certainly be a lot more sensible or logical for Bruce/Tess or Claudia to make an announcement on the shows about the non charity element of this year's programme. I am fed up of having to explain to people that Children in Need is not benefiting... but then again have you ever heard about the Beeb being sensible or logical?!”
“It would certainly be a lot more sensible or logical for Bruce/Tess or Claudia to make an announcement on the shows about the non charity element of this year's programme. I am fed up of having to explain to people that Children in Need is not benefiting... but then again have you ever heard about the Beeb being sensible or logical?!”
OK, this thread's been around for a while now - at what point are we allowed to call people definitively stupid if they post another "Charidee" comment?
Because I really want to...
Because I really want to...
Originally Posted by catslovelycats:
“
I think John would have stayed if it HAD raised money for CIN from the votes. As it is, it's become too serious this year rather than a charity event.”
“
I think John would have stayed if it HAD raised money for CIN from the votes. As it is, it's become too serious this year rather than a charity event.”
Agreed. I think the whole dynamic of the show shifted with the change from it being a charity event. Now more than ever the judges must feel that they can insist the public votes for the 'best' dancer because there's no external reason for them to encourage people simply to vote at all.
I understand the reasons behind the change after all the phone-vote scandals of recent times, but it seems to go hand in hand with the marked emphasis from mere 'entertainment' towards competitive 'dance' this series (not saying that good dancing is not in itself entertaining - of course it is, but IMO the show has definitely lost something of its former charm this year).
Originally Posted by Paperbag_Writer:
“Agreed. I think the whole dynamic of the show shifted with the change from it being a charity event.”
“Agreed. I think the whole dynamic of the show shifted with the change from it being a charity event.”
Yes, I agree.
And, of course, the (obvious and painful
) fact that this change wasn't publicised means that this change is also hidden.I'd really like some sort of "caveat" said - but the thing is, I know why they don't - if they did, loads of people would be ringing up to complain and ask, and they'd have to spend all their time explaining.
It's a poor decision, poorly-implemented.
Originally Posted by Gill P:
“I really think the BBC should make a special announcement about this.
How can they have a £100,000 bill? Seems an awful lot of money. Anyway doesn't the money go to the company who monitor the lines?”
“I really think the BBC should make a special announcement about this.
How can they have a £100,000 bill? Seems an awful lot of money. Anyway doesn't the money go to the company who monitor the lines?”
Whats the cost for phoning to vote? If it was 2o p thats 500000 calls either last week or so far to refund or an assumption that that number will want their money back . May give an idea of how he survived if thats all that were voting for him over 2 months or if its last week it means he probably was well in the lead. Its also a loss to the licence payer if the charge only really does cover the phone vote and counting beacuse the BBC are now refunding for calls that cost them money.Add an admin cost getting the money back out and checking claims are valid.
I don't see why they would give money back anwyay. its not a vote to win but a vote to get someone to survive that week's show. it doesn't carry over or guarantee turning up next week or not walking out. Its only the BBC's responsibility of they knew John was going or that they would push him to go when people voted. People voted for him to stay - he stayed - but then went.
There would be a better case I should think for someone voting Cherie to wonder how a good dancer went early and if it was because the show was helping JS to stay at that stage for ratings.
.
Originally Posted by thenetworkbabe:
“Whats the cost for phoning to vote? If it was 2o p thats 500000 calls either last week or so far to refund or an assumption that that number will want their money back . May give an idea of how he survived if thats all that were voting for him over 2 months or if its last week it means he probably was well in the lead. Its also a loss to the licence payer if the charge only really does cover the phone vote and counting beacuse the BBC are now refunding for calls that cost them money.Add an admin cost getting the money back out and checking claims are valid.
.”
“Whats the cost for phoning to vote? If it was 2o p thats 500000 calls either last week or so far to refund or an assumption that that number will want their money back . May give an idea of how he survived if thats all that were voting for him over 2 months or if its last week it means he probably was well in the lead. Its also a loss to the licence payer if the charge only really does cover the phone vote and counting beacuse the BBC are now refunding for calls that cost them money.Add an admin cost getting the money back out and checking claims are valid.
.”
The announcement on the Strictly site says it is only last Saturday's votes for John that are eligible for a refund.
Each vote was 15p. I have no idea where the £100,000 came from but if it's accurate then John got 10000000/15 = 666,667 votes last Saturday.
Again if the 62% is correct then the total number of votes cast was 1,075,269 and the remaining 6 couples shared 408,602 votes between them.
Originally Posted by kts2k:
“I had no idea that SCD does not raise money for charity!!”
“I had no idea that SCD does not raise money for charity!!”
... that's what this thread is for....
Originally Posted by kts2k:
“I had no idea that SCD does not raise money for charity!!”
“I had no idea that SCD does not raise money for charity!!”
Can you go spread the word?
4 of 7
