Can I just make a point about this cruise?

The cruise operators have issued a statement saying that it was a long-standing arrangement. They add that if John had still been in the competition they would have worked around SCD. They would have welcomed Kristina on board and flown them back for the show.

They also said that they were happy to reschedule John's commitment and emphasised that the cruise was in no way connected to John's decision to quit.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukp...N1XXod_3Yh0-iQ

Surely the solution is in the title of the programme:

"STRICTLY come dancing"?

not strictly anything else. The judges were doing their job. Their remit is to judge a dance competition!!

Cruise was amazing, best holiday ever. Real value for money in that you really don't have to spend a penny if you don't want to once on board. Drinks( alcohol type) are the only extras oh and soft drinks but are very reasonable on P&O.

We are going on another cruise on Thursday and I am taking my laptop. The internet connection is via satellite so can be a bit patchy and is a bit pricey. We are on Aurora this time and I think there is wireless connection in the public areas. although when you are in port you can be fortunate to get a 'free' connection.

Food is amazing, silver service, staff are just fantastic.

so in fact it would have been no different to when Matthew was going to Scotland when he was partnered by Carole.

Dam, if only I had known that at the time, I could have picked him up at the airport...........

Would make no difference. JS still deserves 1 s and 3s by comparison with what other people were doing to get 5s or 8s . The anti-judge vote would still have backed him. The judges just wouldn't have been able to explain their marks. There's no nice way to point out that someone is a failure or any good reason to penalise better people by pretending the bad dancer succeeded.

The first problem isn't only a JS one. Its about the anti-judge vote which at its best is judging something thats nothing to do with dancing and at worst is just an anti-authority vote. The anti-judge vote almost certainly will switch this week to whoever next is bottom of the leaderboard. That means that Cherie v Lisa could be followed this week by Tom v Rachel followed by Austin v the survivor. its an ongoing problem Len is talking about not one about last week.

The point about Cherie is not only that the better dancer falls out a week early its that the competition therafter is decided by Cherie and who else falls victim to the problem going when they do. Cherie against John would have survived a bad week and might have had lots of good weeks later on. That could easily shape the later competition. The final result now is distorted by the fact that Tom and Austin both survived weeks that were as bad or worse but Cherie and someone this week did/may not. If who gets to the end is decided by when the anti-judge vote comes out and the person who arranges who gets what dance when it becomes a very random competition.

The deciding of who goes is meant to be on the dance off perfromance so the earlier marks that show do not count. Lisa's dance off was better than her first effort and Cherie's. If they looked at the record Cherie was ahead on really good performances but had a clear problem with Latin, looked to be stalling and it was Lisa who was building momentum . The first way to decide is a call for Lisa. The second is arguable for Lisa too.

John Sargent = Nice bloke, no need for engraciation

Len Goodman = Media nice bloke, actually a nasty grining assasin

The rest = Just trying to engratiate their failing careers

If the judges aren't to be allowed to say what they think in the media outside the programme, then neither should the pros or celebs be.

I think it's fne for them all to have an opinion although like some I do agree it could be phrased better.

I would agree with you on all points except the first one. I think JS is a combination of the media nice bloke who is actually a nasty grinning assassin and also someone who is trying to exaggerate his failing career. Good riddance to him. He is no loss to the show, which has done fine without him for years.

Basically all the judges, pros and presenters have contributed greatly to the success of the show over the years, whereas all JS seems to have done is contribute to its demise - curse him! The should would ahve been fine without him and I hope he and his fans haven't ruined it for the future. I hate him for ruining me favourite show with his media-publicity-tarting. Yes, they all do it, but most of them are a lot more subtle than John "I'm only here for the votes" Sergeant.

diva moon seems to have it all worked out!

he/she will tell us who to vote for, then they will email the judges and tell them who to save, and the choice will be made! by whom? diva moon?

This is supposed to be a democracy!

and I for one, will be voting for who I want to!

Blame anyone? then who picked the line up? "hey, why don't you join strictly? you've got no chance of winning, but we need to make up the numbers!" Any takers?

IMO its a light entertainment programme on a weekend for the whole family and people choose take whatever they want from it. I personally think its about seeing a bunch of celebs learning a dance and trying to improve and be the best that they can be.

Now yes the judges are there to judge the dancing but when they start to get personal they are not judging the dancing they are judging the dancers (who i think all try the hardest for themselves)

I would love to hear them give all the couples positive and negative feedback because ALL the couples have something that they did good and they have things that they could improve and work on.

Len said one comment 'its not helped the aged' how was that connected to the dance? All of them where damm right rude to John that week and i thought it was disgraceful.

Arlene on ITT said something about all John did was sit and read the newspaper. Does anyone think that Kristina would have let him come to training just to read a newspaper all day?

The judges overstepped the mark with John this week (in the media and press) and i for one think they should be ashamed.

I think they are ashamed now Olls. Worried too. They got carried away with the things they said. I believe they were very much in the wrong but I can't help feeling sorry for them now they have been brought down to earth. They won't make the same mistakes again.

I don't feel sorry for them at all - perhaps the backlash they are experiencing will give them a taste of the discomfort and embarrassment they have been dishing out.

They grew too big for their boots and needed bringing down to size. If this furure has done nothing more than remind the judges that we expect professionalism from them, then it has served it's purpose. Pity John had to be the catalyst for this to be accomplished.

Craig was torn apart by callers on phone-in radio on Monday but did not review his stance in the slightest, if his tone on ITT Wednesday is any guide.

In his book there was a passage revealing he understood how profitable playing pantomime villain has been to him. I do not believe cold fish Mr Horwood gets carried away -- it is his conscious strategy to differentiate and draw attention to himself as larger than life, with ££££££ payoff. He cannot be Mr Niceguy, so he will be Mr Nasty. The worst possible thing for his £ earnings is to fade into consensus.

As in his former profession, cash is king.

How can I be "wrong" when I've not actually stated an opinion?


I comment on loads of rubbish, it doesn't mean your argument is compelling. In fact, it usually means the opposite.

The post states " No, it's Not" a direct refutation of my previous comment. I think therefore I am correct in adopting a position where I can assume you to be wrong ( my opinion ) and myself to be right. I see no confusion in this.
As to the "rubbish" that you frequently comment on ( your words not mine), I know nothing of this ( I suppose whatever floats your're boat)
I merely state that my original post has drawn you into this thread several times to comment so therefore it fulfilled it's intention of engaging debate and interest.
You are free not to like my style or technique of post but it seems rather odd to take such offense to it

Did anyone else feel the judges did stick more to the judging to nite ( apart from the knock down punch and Judy routine between Len and Craig) and offered more constructive critique than they did all series, in one show.
Maybe they are worried for their positions, I hope they continue to behave better.

Thanks, enn

Oh right - sorry, I thought you were referring to the original topic not my comment.


Pah, this isn't me taking offense - you need to do something galactically stupid (like post an "I'm Outraged That John's Betrayed Children In Need" thread) to get me annoyed.

You are free to think that


"Drawing my attention" <> "clever"

I feel this would not be a problem if the whole bottom two/ danceoff thing was removed. It must be horrible for the judges to have to be responsible for sending someone home even when both dancers are excellent. I particularly feel for Len who has the casting vote.
Surely a lot of the vitriolic comments would be avoided if the bottom placed person was just out each week - or at least if the judges could deadlock the danceoff so it would be the lowest public vote that counted (as on the X Factor).

Surely the vitriolic comments could easily be avoided if people engaged brain before speaking or writing and exercised a bit of self control.

Nobody should ever call someone a "dancing pig", for example.