The program is supposed to be an entertainment show, its watched by the public who then choose their favourites.

John was put under a lot of pressure by SCD and i bet you not just the judges to quit as they felt it made a mockery of dancing

Well if it is a dancing spectacle then why have any celebrities.

So heres now the problem they have

next year, lets say for example Chris Biggins says he would like to have a go

No disrespect to Biggins but he wont be the best dancer, but his popularity would be so high that he could possibly win it, so are they going to turn down anyone popular who is not a good dancer, because if they dont, we will just have the same scenario

So is SCD gonna be renamed

SCDFTWAFAAGAD

strictly come dancing for those who are fit attractive and good at dancing

Bring back John, and let the public decide

Totally agree, why bother asking them if they are not prepared to accept the less than perfect winner.

Definately won't be voting again this year (sorry Jodie).

What exactly is the point of a public vote? If the judges aren't happy they will just moan and bitch constantly at the contestant and make them feel small. Just let the judges decide the winner for us!

I gave up watching a couple of years ago... The show has become farcical. I stopped posting on here at the same time because some posters were vicious. If anyone disagreed with them, they went for the jugular. It's only a show on a winters night, not life and death

I have always thought it ridiculous to keep voting for the worst dancer in a dancing show, forcing the judges to eject far better dancers than John - but, obviously, he has just as much right as anyone else to be there.

He has been put in this position - firstly by being kept in ahead of superior dancers and secondly by the criticism this would naturally attract and the media highlighting of it.

I am disappointed that he has resigned - but he probably feels completely uncomfortable in his position - and did quite rightly point out that he remains in the show according to the rules - but this comment just attracted more public criticism.

I don't think the judges aim any more criticism at him than they do at other dancers in the show who they feel aren't performing well. :sleep:

I have to add that my son (who doesn't watch the show) likes the fact that the public are subverting the show by voting for lacklustre performers.

I would also add that I loved John's Paso - that was terrific entertainment and extremely funny.

The thing is, unless celebs audition, the producers wouldn't know whether Christopher Biggins is a good dancer or not. He might be a marvellous twinkle toes - or develop into one. That, I think, is the point of the show. I don't think the producers envisaged bad performers being kept in week after week at the expense of better ones.

Would some of the people amused by the situation feel the same if they were performing well in the show and had to leave because they received less public votes than a lesser dancer - I don't think so.

I don't think it's a question of being fit and attractive - it's how good a dancer you turn out to be.

I don't know if it's for the same reasons but I haven't enjoyed the last couple of series as much as the first three.The whole thing has become too intense and much less fun. The dance off was introduced to stop good dancers being voted off. The public reacted by keeping in the likes of Kate Garaway. There is no point in having a show where 50% of the vote goes to the public and then trying to rig the outcome.

very good post.

At the end of the day, whatever happens, not everyone is going to be happy. If the bad but entertaining celebs stay while the good but rather dull celebs leave, then people will moan it isn't a dance competition, and if the entertaining celebs quit because they are worried they'll win, then their fans won't be happy either. You can all discuss this for hours, but it won't change anything.

I'm all for a serious dance contest. But the format needs to be changed accordingly.

The current system allows people of all ages, shapes, sizes and dancing ability onto the show and permits the public to vote for their 'favourites' and that's what we've been doing.

To create the rules and then moan when viewers follow them, is absurd.

I agree. If you want a serious dance contest then the celebs have to start on an even playing field. Even then popularity and personality will still effect the voting.

The situation is that such shows always need obviously bad people to go early though. That gives a few laughs and allows the good to stay and the potentially good a fair amount of time to show any potential. the alternative is people like Heather, Christine or Jodie going too early to fulfill their potential. The compact with the public is that they will vote the bad dancer out quite soon and pick who they like from the better dancers.

Here its gone badly wrong. The bad dancer has stayed. The judges pointing out that he should not be there sending good dancers home have produced a story and possibly enough votes for John to destroy the final either by being there, winning or stopping the dancing competion getting there. The problem is the public vote or the proportion of it voting anti-judge or confusing SCD with IAC where the votes are often for the oldest likeable person . John has built his support very carefully but its not his fault.

I think that the stupid voting public, who, I suspect comprise the very young and are generally of the female gender and who've nothing better to do than keep the redial function of the phones, either landline or mobile, working overtime.
As a result, they have cleary kept an amusing but inferior dancer in this farce, that SCD has become.

They and they alone have put John Sargeant in this embarrassing position, in which he finds himself.

Shame on those of you who have been responsible for this charade.

Sorry , but they just need to be more specific on the rules in conjuction with tiltle of the programme, either take dancing out of the title, and make it something like Entertain tonight , and then no matter who does the best dance , it will be about the entertainment value, not the dance. At the moment, dance is in the title, and some people including me watch it for the best improved celeb, thats entertaining.

I have no sympathy with js, only genuine amazmant at his blinding overall play of the public.

Yawn, yawn, yawn..........................


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............

Agree. Cherie though made the opposite point that age didn't stop someone being a contender. There has to be a range which includes Louisa Lytton being energetic and Cherie being serene. The judges may have overmarked Cherie because they couldn't quite do the comparison but that doesn't mean they can't mark that range or that Cherie looked out of place alongside everyone else who also has weak areas.

The problem is whether you have poor dancers - old, young, fat, slim. Their purpose is to protect the better dancers from going early but, if they end up ensuring that the better dancers go anyway by staying, its time not to have them. It would as you say be possible to eliminate those with no potential - DOI does this .

Its a shame though because some voting audiences seem to be able to make the distinctions and laugh with the bad and allow the improving to improve whilst preserving the good - instead of keeping the bad, laughing at teh judges and chucking out the good and the improving.