No problem

I don't recall any other couples being hounded by viewers to step down or campaigned against relentlessly by the judges or treated like outcasts by the other contestents.

Of course John has been bullied.

Sorry.

Sid, how was this year different from Kate Garraway, Kenny Logan, Fiona Phillips and Chris Parker? What has in your opinion been done differently?

And did Louis Walsh bully Daniel Evans by saying he didn't like him and he shouldn't be on the show. If not what is the difference there?

Quizmike, John's departure aside, if it is true that 40% of John Sergeant's votes have been from an anti-judge faction (as a poster says a recent poll suggested) doesnt that tell you anything?

It tells me that the judges no longer have the respect of a large section of the viewing public. If they dont have the public's respect then they will never be effective in their roles and for the good of all viewers - entertainment junkies and dance-purists alike - it is for the best if they are replaced with some new faces.

But if you read or hear lots of comments from these type of voters they don't watch normally/ don't watch at all or haven't watched the series and have read all their information in the papers (ie the infammatory Daily Mail) or heard it on the news.

Many of us still have no problem with the judges but the judges may well now have a problem with the show.

Completely agree FF. It's like the oodles of folks that complained (O/T) about the whole "Brand/Ross" fiasco without even hearing the recording.

What confuses me is why people are defending the likes of Arlene. If anyone genuinely thinks she makes relevant and constructive comments on the dancing then I suppose they could defend her right to continue on the show, but I just find her completely awful this series. In fact, after most of the performances (even from the so-called "better" dancers) we just get four fairly meaningless utterances from the judges - alliterative nonsense from Arlene, lewd talk of walnuts and balls etc from Len, stick insects on acid from Craig and lots of arm waving from Bruno. When I record the main show I usually find myself skipping past the judges' comments - sack them all and let's breathe some new life into the show I say...

I don't believe John has been bullied. Actually there is one person who you could argue has been bullied but there are no threads complaining about his treatment-

Bruce Forsyth.

If anyone is being forced to step down it's Bruce, with comments from people on here and elsewhere, in the media also- ranging from him being too old for the job, his jokes not being funny and he is just not up to it anymore.

If Bruce quits the show and doesn't return next year will people say he was bullied into resigning?

Just a thought.

And what do you base this notion on? What you read on here? Or can you tap into the 10m viewers minds and tell what they're thinking?

As far as JS and his speaking circuit is concerned - imagine what he'll be able to offer as a speaking subject now! He'll be the darling of the cruise liner world. And who knows, he may even offer a bit of demonstration ballroom as an additional extra.

He is quoted himself as saying he was not bullied, lets face it he is not the sort of guy who can get bullied and has been in much more intimidating surroundings.

John fans, just respect his decision, you support him so its not too much to ask to belive him too

Yeh, sure non viewers make a point of tuning in just to make an anti-judge vote. You can believe that if you like but, knowing how many wind-up merchants there are on the internet, I don't believe it for a second.


OK let me get this straight.

I refer to a poll where 40% of John's voters admitted to voting for him to put the judges in their place and I draw a conclusion from that. You disparage my conclusion despite its logic and the fact it has been backed up by a plethora of (pre-JS debacle) posts showing a good deal of disatisfaction at the current panel.

On the other hand an OP, without any real source or context, claiming JS is off on a "speaking tour" - at sea no less!! - is taken at face value despite the fact John is currently hosting a current affairs panel show that is running until 2009.

*Nods sagely* Bright, very bright

I'm sorry, but the tour is well-known, I've heard it mentioned on several news programmes now.

It was mentioned on the 6pm news on Radio 4, for example.

So I think you'll need to accept that it's reasonably well-sourced, OK?

Well, if John can appear as an after-dinner speaker on a cruise boat to Panama AND host a panel show at the same time, he really is god

PS: It is so well-known it returns no hits on Google

Hi,

I'm glad you think I'm very bright...

If you'd bothered to look I posted the source here

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...d.php?t=935731

And Arguemental was recorded at London studios in Sept and Oct this year. All episodes are in the can. There's a thread on the television forum from people who saw it being recorded.

Just to make things easier for you, here's a link to the recording details of Arguemental. It does say Sept 2008 I'm afraid...

http://www.comedy.org.uk/guide/tv/argumental/details/

Hope that helps convince you that I don't just post any old rubbish on here.

Contracted to do a speaking tour means cack all. Every contract for an entertainment booking has a TV clause, which says if the artist booked has a TV opportunity they are allowed to take it. Most commonly used for bands in the old days of Top of the Pops, when they pulled out of live shows to the recording - so don't read any great consiparcy into this.

Your times were awful At 1:37 someone was talking about Spooks and at 2:37...well I cant remember but it wasnt JS or about JS.

Anyway. I persevered and finally got to Colin Patterson talking about JS's press conference. Colin said eventually conspiracy theorists raised their heads and "someone said John is going to be on a cruise ship in the Panama Canal in 2 weeks."

As I said in my first post here, there was no source for this and you have taken Colin's quote completely out of context. You may like to take a second listen.

As for the Argumental show. Yes people have talked about being in the audience for episodes 1 & 2. The show claims it "takes all the most topical and contentious issues of the day." Not sure how topical the news from sept/oct will be by the time the series ends in 2009, but if you're right then at least we wont have to suffer any contentious JS/SCD theme on the show

I saw that. It is completely without context, I could just as easily claim that means when it starts recording. Again there is absolutely no context to points you make as fact.

PS: Why did you earlier say that it was recorded in Oct too? Could it be because people were discussing being a live audience member in Oct?

Breathing deeply...

How can someone saying "John is contracted to be on a boat in the Panama Canal" be taken out of context???

Anyway, hopefully this will sort things out (unless I can take a front page out of context?)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-...ber_20%2C_2008

I think if Kate had got much further we would have had what this year.

Whilst bullying over the top to describe what happened, it did feel that Arlene and Craig who were making comment outside of the Saturday shows to make JS feel he shouldn't be there. Which Jemes heightened on Sunday.

John compared SCD to being at a party. No-one wants to go to a party and be hold you're only here because I had to invite you.

I havent laughted so much in ages...........roflmao

I dont see the problem in refreshing the judges, there are lots of ex dancers / judges out there. The change the celebs and the Pros, why not the judges..inject some new blood.......get some new comments.

Wrong thread???

who cares....im agreeing with tallyho