How individuals are treating each other in public is one thing; how some of them are briefing the press off the record is quite another. It's a little naive to confuse the two.

I don't think it's fair that everyone is basing the pros and the celebs supposedly being cruel to John on James behaviour, especially since he's proven what an ass he can be in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if James was the only one with the problem.

Not a problem.

I will admit to not noticing James and John specifically talking to each other so couldn't comment as to whether there's a problem between them or not but in general John was speaking with the celebs and dancers around him and there was no atmosphere that I noticed. I'm not really a James fan anyway so wasn't really focused on him.oh, that sounds harsher than I meant it to.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least!

I assumed - probably quite rightly - that it was his wife who asked him to leave the show. She is a private person who doesn't like the publicity - and he is devoted to her!

In the end John cares a million times more about what she thinks than he does about what the judges or public do. He is retired effectively after all so doesn't need to worry about a career (like Rachel Stevens et al). He will make a lot of money though out of this!

I don't believe anywhere in my comment did I profess to be confusing the two issues neither do I think that I'm being "a little naïve" I merely pointed out my observations from what I saw on Saturday night first hand.

Remember also 3 things:

1) the party wasn't really a reflection of "public" behaviour as it wasn't open to the public

2) John chose to go to it. Not everyone was there and it's not compulsory so if there really was such a bad relationship between him and everyone else, why would he go?

3) there really was no noticeable atmosphere between him and anyone else there. In fact, the only atmosphere I witnessed myself was when a non-celeb tried to talk to him and he refused (and no, that wasn't me). Not a great reaction for someone relying on votes and public support or particularly indicative of his "public" image as portrayed on the show matching his "real life" behaviours. But that's just my "naïve" opinion from what I experienced.

I smell a dirty rat!

Saturday 7pm - at the end of the AS John and Kristina walked up the stairs towards the back room. Had Brucie not urgently called them back, their body language showed they definitely would have carried on walking away.

Saturday 10pm - After his eviction James volunteered an unprecedented statement. He said "Please, please" but there was no disguising his message, that millions of customers needed to pay with their own money and vote James's way.

Monday 6:30pm ITT - James reaffirmed his advice to 10 million viewers - to vote James's way and get rid of John.

Wednesday 6pm special ITT - after John got rid of himself, James restated his position in even stronger terms, adding that John has perpetrated the most selfish act ever known to SCD. Arlene tried to produce tears for John but failed. Len basically said, "Who? Me?", Bruno made himself scarce. Craig on the phone called John a coward.

After these 4 steps in the downward spiral in the full glare of TV, radio, and newspapers watched by a natiowide audience far exceeding SCD's usual 10 million, BBC management chose to continue seeing nothing, hearing nothing, saying nothing.

Thursday - The following poll of 500 improvised by taxi_driving and published in DS at 7pm (without professional demographic sampling, but many will agree the findings are not too different from numerous outher newspaper online poll results:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...412&highlight=

We have just read the Daily Mail article and for those people who do not use or read forums, but do read the said newspaper and have watched the recent news bulletins on television, the article will be quite believable.

My OH mother was a professional dancer and she said there is some bitchiness and cattiness amongst dancers so this article as she said can be believable. She says it goes with the territory.

Who or what is to blame, we shall never know. We think it is a culmination of all people and situations involved. The show is damaged, but will recover. It just leaves a bad taste at the moment. We feel 16 weeks is far too long.

Adios y hasta luego.

It's the Daily Mail - they probably think it's their duty to exaggerate and sensationalise. The only fact that can be substantiated is the fact that John was frozen out by most other partnerships last Saturday - this was confirmed by Anton on ITT when he said 'someone opened the fridge door.'

I agree. Some exaggeration, as is always the case with these stories..and not just from the Daily Mail.
But the basics of the story correspond with other leaks and confirmations concerning the atmosphere backstage. I think it is a fair reflection.

Hear, hear.

Perhaps, but that's just repeated from another (more respectable) story.

That's another tabloid trick. Include some accepted facts. It tends to make the article that includes them seem more credible, but those facts don't actually show that anything from the anonymous "sources" and "insiders" has any credibility at all.

Apart from Anton's opinion, are there any "confirmations" from any named and credible source?

Ditto for other "leaks". The papers often copy from each other or press similar ideas to stir up interest, thus creating the illusion of multiple, independent sources.

Really? Political correspondents are offered exotic and glamourous cruises from time to time?

If so, perhaps they have to turn them down to avoid accusations of conflict of interest, and so would welcome new offers once that's no longer an issue.

John retired from journalism six years' ago - he's no longer a political correspondent.

I know. That's why the potential accusations of conflict of interest what would go with him being a political correspondent are "no longer an issue".

Exactly -John is retired from his job as a political correspondent. Having cruised with P&O many times they have all sorts of lecturers on board so will have been able to replace John quite easily. Last cruise it was Jackie Charlton who spent two weeks with his wife cruising Norway with us. Previously Nicky Slater (DOI) who joined for the couple of days he was lecturing - flying in & out to the cruise ship. P&O do the latter a lot of the time with the entertainment acts as well as they don't want to 'waste' their time cruising when they could be earning elsewhere or even just being at home. For someone like John S who is retired I'm sure he would take advantage of a two week holiday but there was no way he had to be away for a full two weeks.

Well, there is no "smoking gun" ( apart from James perhaps )..but if you take a cursory look at the weight of circumstantial evidence that has appeared throughout the course of the week, it becomes obvious that SCD was not a happy ship. I did only say that the article seemed to be a fair reflection of the "atmosphere"..this also appeared to be confirmed by John's leaving speech..as outsiders, we obviously have to "read between the lines" to some extent.

Yes, we cruised to the North Cape in the summer and artists (and some staff) flew in and out from various ports. One came on for only two nights.

All sorts of backgrounds are chosen for lectures and talks. I am sure John is a really interesting after dinner speaker.

I agree with that. We all know the taboids do exagerate for effect but the essence of this story very much fits well with what I've seen on main show/ITT/various other shows where judges in particular interviewed. I know at time many of us wondered why John didn't comfort Kristina when she cried on ITT on Wednesday. Even that is explained for me when I read about him being accused on getting too touchy feely with females on set. This is just nonsense as it is clear that John/Kristina had a wonderful relationship & she had no problem with him. If anyone was going to be upset by this type of behaviour it would be his partner. Compare this with Lilia & the guy from The One Show last year where she looked totally uncomfortable with him. I was relieved for her when they got voted out,

I don't have a problem with the article, obviously there may be some inaccuracies, but it generally seemed to have alot of the truth ...
(Don't have a problem with the Mail either, I love Bel Mooney's column every Saturday )

My thoughts exactly.



TV2 - thanks for this - the only problem is I doubt many people will believe you as the information won't please them at all.


That's not what I thought. I thought he didn't want her to become the focus of the interview.

For once, some of the content of the article seems sensible and reliable.

I always think it's sad when a group of unknowns,have a degree of fame.... and suddenly their egos grow out of all proportion,the competitiveness and win at all costs that are the professional dancing circuit ,seem to have spread like a cancer into the Saturday night light entertainment show that was Strictly Come Dancing...and this isn't the 1st time I've read this.
Without raking over old coals I'd say most people have a pretty shrewd idea who the perpetrators are,and to be honest if the professional dancers, and judges, want a professional dancing competition, then the Beeb should rightly send them back to the ballroom circuit,also make it clear to celebs in the future that Strictly is a reality show..and guess what the public may not like them,regardless of dancing ability, therefore not vote for them.
I remember the start of this series the number of posts ,me included which went along the lines of ,somethings not right,don't know what....or something's missing can't put my finger on it...now we know, obviously that awful atmosphere transferred to our TV screens,hence the fun and enjoyment that is integral to SCD were gone,and we can all see why everyone was so intense.

Ellie