I really like Lisa. Tonights ITT made up for all the times R&V were dubbed the 'perfect couple' and the fact they got perfect score for a dull dance.

I really like Christine and Matt's partnership but I don't think she's as good a dancer as Lisa. I'm definitely no expert though.

I only pick this post as an example of the "Judges conspiracy theory".

This really is SO much b****cks. How on earth do people think that the judges work out on the hoof after each performer has danced, how much they need to give to keep them above the person before or the person after. Do people think that the scores are decided beforehand in the dressing rooms perhaps? If Rachel came in and fell over twice during her Rumba or Foxtrot, do people honestly think they'd give her 9s or 10s? If Lisa or Christine turn up and dance flawlessly, why on earth do people think that the judges would give them only 7s or 8s? Why would the judges do this? Are they being bribed? Do people think there's a financial incentive here? Honestly? Such absolute rubbish.

These judges are, like many of us watching the show, here for the dancing. You can see the joy in their faces when someone does something wonderful on the dance floor. That is why they give high marks. Arlene remarked on Lisa's training film on ITT tonight saying she looked great. Her marks tomorrow however will depend on her performance. If it's great, she'll get good marks. If it's not, she won't.

Ok - Having got that off my chest I leave these idiots to their enjoyment of their stupid conspiracy theory and leave this thread for brighter shores....

I'm no expert either but I think they both have the same strength (ballroom) and weakness (Latin). Plus Lisa's nerves kick in and Christine can't let her self go enough (except in the Jive). I don't think one is much better than the other.

I really do think that they might come up with the scores beforehand. The judges are often right, but sometimes I really do think they have an agenda. I really get the feeling that Arlene dislikes Christine, don't know why, just a feeling I get from her. I really don't believe they mark each celeb on alevel playing field. This year is the first time I've felt like this, with Cherie's mistake at the beginning of one of her dances and the judges ignoring it when choosing the scores. I think the fact you called everyone here idiots just shows the lack of your own intelligence to word your argument well enough. Anyway some people choose to ignore things because it's want they want to see, some people always want to find conspiracies where they aren't. I do believe some of the marks this year have not been completely fair. I also believe that some people believe that the judges' word is Gospel when they themselves admit that they do mistakes.

Of course Arlene dislikes Christine. Arlene dislikes attractive young women in general and always favours the good looking men young enough to be her grandson's.I swear if Len said the things she did to the women on the show he'd be called a dirty old man.

So true!!! That explains Austins high marks from her at least!!

Of course, that's why her only 10's this year have been to Rachel and why she gave so many to Alesha last year.

She may not like Christine as much, as Christine is not as good - simple as really!!

Completely agree.

As one of the idiots (), I can only say that I too noticed the blatant favouritism on display throughout this week on ITT towards Lisa and Rachel. Regardless of their dancing strengths - which they both have in abundance - we know from the leaked figures in last Sunday's People that they are less popular than Austin, Tom and Christine.

So I'd call it more of an educated guess than a conspiracy theory that they will both get top marks tomorrow to protect them. Arlene and Bruno have already said that they think a woman will win Strictly this year - and I think we can safely say they mean Rachel. Unfortunately for them, Rachel has got less public support than Austin, Tom and Christine, so they are overmarking her [1] to protect her and [2] to hype her up in the hope that her public support will increase. :yawn:

With John Sergeant now out of the picture, Christine is now labelled as the weakest link - hence her being given two tough dances this week, in the hope that she will fluff at least one of them and end up in the dance-off, where she can be disposed of.

You would think that after Sergeant-gate, the producers and the judges would have stopped trying to influence the public vote ... but apparently not. The judges do form opinions of the contestants from the training footage they see - which inevitably has a bearing on their scores. That was more than apparent in the run-up to Rachel's rumba - which was indeed great, but the judges' opinions were telegraphed the previous week on ITT, so there was no surprise.

As for motive, it's simple: it's all about who the producers and the judges want in the final - which will, I think you will find, be at odds with who the public want ...

Enjoy your "brighter shores" by all means, but I suspect Alli-F's predicted scores may well be right ... unless, of course, Christine hoovers up all Jodie's votes, in which case things could get sticky for one of the boys ...

The net result of these pathetic attempts to manipulate the public vote is actually the reverse of what's intended - people take against the judges' favouritism. But clearly the producers are too stupid to realise this ...

If you watched ITT tonight, you'd realise she's not that keen on him either!

Quite - expect her to mark Austin down for his latin tomorrow.

Arlene made it plain last Sunday where her loyalties now lie - not a particularly professional thing to do, but then the judges have become progressively worse this series, so I probably shouldn't be suprised ...

I don't think it's a case of giving Christine difficult dances to do on purpose. The Tango and the Salsa are two of the dances that she has left. Everyone has dances that might not necessarily suit them left to do.

So, who really did shoot John F. Kennedy? And more importantly, why?

Obviously it was Lisa and Rachel conspiring together to protect them from the dance off.

Both of Rachel's look very good but no one bothered to say so.

I can't see anything wrong if they are pointing out that Lisa is looking good too when she is..

They are in an awkward place with Rachel as she's capable of producing a lot of 10s but some people will complain however much she deserves them.

The show set up the expectation that Lisa will do well, both boys are not quite at their best and Christine is the weakest . Again that looks credible.

Obviously they think Christine should go next which is again realistic given the gap in performance. The issue is whether Christine can get into the top two in the public vote or whether someone comes unstuck on the night and if not who has to be in the dance off with her.

the scores for Cherie's dancing disaster blew the lid, for sure

Rachel's waltz looked good, but I would expect it to suit her, but her paso really didn't look good to me. She wasn't performing it, she was again back to the age old problem she has, she wasn't selling that paso for me. There was no aggression, no passion, no drama, it was sweet lickle Rachel doing a paso, technically well, and maybe better lines than Austin, but Austin's going to probably sell that paso way better than Rachel does.

But hey, that could all change tomorrow night!

Lets apply occam. The worst dancer gets the worst marks. The best dancer on the night (be it Tom, Austin , Lisa or Rachel at different times) gets the best marks. There's nothing there to explain.

The judges vote for the best dancers. They want the best dancers to stay. They therefore will want some people to go and some people to stay - because someone has to go. Its nothing to do with favouritism - which would be about bringing in personal or irrelevant factors - like preferring the bright blonde blue eyed one to the pug ugly brilliant one. Its about promoting whats good and whats not good going.

Looked pretty dramatic to me - Vincent has worked out what to do with the cape to involve both of them in what I saw.

Since when did the public believe everything in the papers?

Why would they?

When a story confirms what they want to read its true, when it doesn't its made up.

I have to say that a vast majority of viewers do not sit and seethe about supposed conspiracies over the marking-they watch, judge themselves and vote.

Why on earth would they try and engineer an unpopular winner and how would it benefit the show in any way?

This tour stuff is nonsense-so and so is on tour so they are trying to make them win. Huh??

If the dancers were that unpopular, who the heck would want to go and watch?

Why is it that the good peeps here rebel so hard against expert opinion and consider it so terrible? The judges don't put a gun to anyones head to pick up the phone. They score the dances that are performed.

Good gravy, poor Lisa dared to improve! Christine remains gorgeous but awkward-its all a fix I tell ya!!

Last time I checked, its for a glitter ball.

Would that be the faffing about part that Len is never keen on?

Whilst I defer to your impressive number of posts, and your even more impressive name, (), I gotta say this just ain't true.

The judges voted Cherie's meltdown dance highly, ditched Gabby over Penny, and scored Austin's first 10 (Len) for purely marketing reasons.

The "leaked" figures don't show she is less popular. They were only for one week, and there are many factors that affect votes.

It depends how big the Christine and the The One Show vote is and how many of the "lets spite the judges by voting for the worst one" JS voters have switched to Christine. If Christine beats both boys and the girls in the public vote Rachel versus Lisa is possible even if Christine comes last with the judges.

However if either boy beats Christine she's in the bottom two unless she does better with the judges.

Ideally the voting will go with the dancing which amongst other things means that we won't know who can and can't win weeks beforehand.