the best Cha Cha Cha ??? this is a wind up?

Like the "wind-up" when I said Christine would go on Saturday ?

btw, Elvis sends his love

lol, good one ...

but you must bear in mind, I hadn't figured on the judges fixing the leader board. Guess I'm just too trusting

this is prescisely the reason why i was so pi$$ed off with JS for leaving the show.

Very newbie as you can see from my number of posts. Well you have to start some time.

Can't help wondering why Beeb doesn't make known the public votes.

I am sure someone will put me right on that

I agree. This was not the best Cha Cha Cha.. ballroom was lovely though.

Who's was then?

I know what you are aying... but given that the public voted in drones for John Seargent...then Yes I do think it hard to believe they would vote for best dancer...

OMG I have been eating Marmite for years I wish I had known this before

Stu !!!!! I am shocked you could even think this, you have no proof that those wonderful judges would even contemplate such a henous act, I have no idea how that idea could have popped into your head.

well as far as i'm aware its because they don't want to make things awkward for those in the show, personally i feel if they have the phone vote then to prove there is no fiddle going on they have to announce who gets what votes or it will lead to accusations that the voting is rigged, simple word if we pay we want to know how got what,

Don't tell me this old chestnut thread is still going? For goodness sake let it die a natural and well deserved death.

To save the whole thing being repeated, here's the previous debate on this subject...

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...al+phone+votes

Actually Daniel, just realised you started that thread!

why? do we not have a right to know who got what?, sorry but if they expect you to pick up the phone and vote then we do have a right to know the amount of votes and who got what, after all we are spending our hard earned pennies when doing so,

would you accept any other voting scenario to be conducted on the same lines? i certainly would not,

and thats where i leave my two penny worth on the subject, even i realise we just all end up going over the same ground time after time,

Er.....we've said all this before. Why you starting again??

Here is an explaination from the same conversation which was happening in November 2007. Hope this helps.


ETA...just seen your above post and have seen that we agree

That's what I'm thinking! It's quite funny how people get angry that better dancers are being kept in over personalities!

If you do it before the final it gives the result away. (I suspect it might tell you now that someone with a three letter name will win this series)

If you do it after its potentially embarassing in many many ways :

No one voted till the final - Its all decided on a very few votes till then.

JS was way ahead for dancing abysmally.

The worst dancer who got thrown out in the SF had 80% of the votes - presumably for something else.

The winner won by a mile. (a poor competion)

The winner won by one vote. ( a lucky win)

The three finalists got 33. 33 and 34 % of the vote at the first count (it was a lottery who won/no one was outstanding)

Tess said it was close but the winner had 8o% of the vote......

Some people had no or few votes (does damage to your marketability and confidence) - no one would risk going on SCD and being exposed as unloved.

The votes go disproportionately to males, white people or some other group or people who are black or female or who were sent on first or second got very few votes - lots of cans of worms to be opened there.....


Reality shows tend to say as little as possible and give the winners percentage as a percentage of the last two people's votes so that one always gets more than 50% and looks more credible - just to avoid all those cans of worms.

I think there could be some truth in that.
Why ?..the judges wanted to keep the best four dancers in the competition. They knew Rachel and Lisa were not popular with the public, so one of them had to be top of the leader board to be "safe". As long as it was Christine against Rachel or Lisa, they could justifiably send Christine packing. Without a bit of "creative" marking it could have been a dance-off between Rachel and Lisa..given the public support for the other contestants.
In a way, I dont blame them..I would prefer to see the best four contestants left. Of course, that is all conjecture..it will be interesting to see the marking next week.

So it had nothing to do with Christine being by far the weakest dancer (even by her own admission)?

Of course it was a conspiracy to get rid of the one remaining BBC employee. And of course if she had stayed it would have been a conspiracy to keep in the one remaining BBC employee.

Of course the shock news that the judges just judged the dances how they saw it is not good enough for some people.

I didn't know it. In fact, I would not have thought that the leaderboard was rigged.

Perhaps it's the effects of the tin-foil hat that I wear?

I know. I was mocking the thread

Ok, genius, transcribe everything Arlene said to Christine and point out exactly where this 'intimidation' occurred .

The unfortunate legacy with reality TV is that semi-articulate people now bandy the word "bullying" about in any instance in which they observe or perceive an element of negativity or criticism.

According to your definition everyone of the judges has bullied each of the contestants with any criticism they have given due to their elevated (aherm!) status as professionals addressing non-professionals.

(ps: no need to thank me for setting you straight as regards the voting system ~ I'm assuming you've cottoned on now? )

Deleted: double post

Semi-articulate! Ha ha. That's rich coming from someone who can't read a dictionary and actually grasp the concept of a definition and place it in context! I've just graduated from uni with an English degree, so i think i'm fairly confident with my articulation thanks.


Actually the definition came from an Oxford dictionary. As for your point: of course criticism is fine, but there are times when the delivery and content is anything but constructive. Both Christine and Sergeant have been victims of bullying just because they weren't as good as their fellow contestants and the judges didn't want them in the competition anymore. The problem with this position is that the public didn't agree. Yet despite spending their money to support the 'tryers' the programme appears to get the result it wants.

How is that fair?

Oh, thanks for putting me right on the scoring. Unfortunately i'm a backseat viewer and not up to scratch with all the ins and outs of the show, so i do apologise for that one.
Last edited by hope in hell : 02-12-2008 at 11:05