Yesterday's Telegraph had an article about the new(ish) head of BBC1. It said that John Sargeant had gone to her two weeks before he actually left to say that he was going. She tried to persuade him not to go but to no avail. So all the talk about being pushed out by the judges is not strictly true.

Now would the new(ish) head of the BBC talk to the newspapers about a confidential conversation? No.

What is most likely is that John and he had an informal chat (they would have known eachother), during which John said he didn't think he would last the course or was wondering if he had done the right thing to join SCD.

We all know what newspapers are like for "accurate" reporting.

I daresay a lot of the celebs go through a phase of thinking they might leave. Best not to voice it.

While I take your general point, the passage of time between the conversation and the Telegraph interview remove any reasonable requirements for confidentiality.

Probably an accurate report. Along w the Indy the Torygraph still has a reputation for excellence in reporting facts.

JJ

I will try and find the snippet. I had a look online but couldn't remember her name. It is Jay Hunt.

Editing to say that I have found the article online.

Jay Hunt

Here is the relevant piece.

I don't believe for an instant that her knowledge of the phone votes is no greater than the viewers' at home. What a ridiculous statement.

Where does it say that?

Dunno. Is the OP reading something different from us?

It's the opening sentence.



Interesting article,. Thanks Gill.

So It DOESNT say 'Two weeks before he left' then?

Less than two weeks ago is when John made the decision to leave.

Someone didn't read it properly I think.

I think it's down to how you interpret the sentence. To me, it reads as though John went to see her just under two weeks ago. Everyone interprets things differently though, so,....

Thats how I read it.
But the article is dated 29th.
He left on the 22nd.
So he informed Jay Hunt 'Less than a week' before he left..

That fits in, doesnt it?

If the sub did his/her job properly, then the single paragraph with the "two weeks ago" and "several conversations" is describing the same event.

So new new story. :yawn:

Oh yes, well we know that. I am sorry, I got the impression from the op that John Sergeant was talking about resigning two weeks before he said it publicly.

No.

He left on the 19th - check for yourself - and the 29th was yesterday.

That means that it will be exactly two weeks ago on Wednesday this week.

So he left just less than two weeks ago.

Honestly, why are some people trying to make John Sergeant out to be devious or a liar ? He decided to leave and he left. He probably considered it before he came to the final decision but we have no reason to believe he firmly decided to leave before he had that bit of 3am agonising.

Anyway it is over now.

Sort of on topic and related to John going . couldn't resist picking this up to read seeing the headline !!

BEST magazine have a double page of SCD articles ; nothing new there .
One , headlined on the cover is Strictly ; Is this the end?

Looks at whether JS going spells the end of SCD , together with Arlene saying she has decisions , Len saying he is exhausted going back and forth ( well don't go Len ! ) and The Beeb having Graham Norton lined up to take over from Brucie .

I do feel the whole JS business may well mean changes .

Sorry I was wrong. I read it like that but on re-reading I saw what you meant.

Why? The phone lines aren't administered by the BBC. An outside company deals with them and sends back the results to those who need to know. Even then they only need the order, not the voting numbers...

I realise the BBC don't admister the phone lines, but do you really think the head of the BBC isn't one of the people 'who need to know' how many people are voting on one of the BBC's flagship programmes?