Me too, honey ~ BA & MA


I stil think you're way off the mark by suggesting that Christine was 'bullied' ~ I'm not the only person in this thread to question this asserion either, so it looks like your perception of bullying is not widely accepted ......

Nowt wrong with differing opinions of what constitutes bullying.

The reason why i think it is bullying, in the case of Christine, is simply because she has always had confidence issues from the start, so when Craig and Arlene tore into her in such a harsh manner, one can only conclude that - knowing full well how fragile her confidence was - it was a deliberate tactic to belittle her.

Now, to me, that kind of behaviour constitutes bullying. But if others disagree, then there's nowt wrong with that.

Seriously? Bullying? Have you ever been bullied? Do you know how devastating it is? The use of the word bullying is very over-emotive, imo. Christine is on a light entertainment show on a Saturday evening where she has the option to walk away if she wants.

The judges are not sat there making personal remarks about her looks or personality, they are talking about her dancing ffs and she's both intelligent and able to not take herself seriously enough to realise that. She knew she wasn't good, she even sat there saying she thought she'd get worse, she was still smiling.

Sometimes the judges can be harsh, but would the general public really want to sit there and watch something where the judges just sat there saying "oh, that's nice dear". They use the pantomime baddie routines because it gets the viewing public emotionally involved.

How on god's earth is that bullying? If someone told you at work during a staff evaluation that your work was sloppy and unorganised, that is NOT bullying, it's evaluating your job performance!

Why do people always try and blame phone rigging when the public vote does not go their way.

Tom & Austin obviously top the public vote. Lisa was safe as she had 1st place with the judges.

Rachael just does not seem to have the public vote ... Christine being last on the leader board would have had to top the public vote to stay in

Ellipsis! I thought there were only ever 3?

I have over-excitable fingers!

Are you so seriously short-sighted to believe that there aren't varying degrees of bullying in a variety of situations? Bullying is an abuse of power. And it comes in all shapes and sizes.


It's a light entertainment show for all the family, so why is it that some of the judges forget this fact and ridicule and belittle certain contestants? The simple fact is, some of the judges take themselves, and the show, too seriously.

Nowt wrong with harsh, constructive criticism, or even playing it up a bit. But the criticism of certain contestants went beyond an 'act' when the judges forgot they were on an entertainment show. I mean what's the point of having a variety of individuals, of varying ages and weights, take part when all that is going to happen is that the fittest/youngest are almost certainly guaranteed to be in the finals? There's nothing entertaining in watching a foregone conclusion! The marking has to be done within context.



How is it the judges duty to go on various radio and TV programmes and say a certain contestant has no business being on the show anymore? That isn't an impartial evaluation.

How is it a judges duty to belittle the weaker dancers and simply say it isn't good enough, and ridicule their cheerful demeanour? That isn't an objective evaluation.

Why is it that for an entertainment show, that's supposed to be a bit of fun and a laugh, are there no such contestants left? The only people left are those who are desperate to win it.

Christine or Sergeant winning the show would have been in keeping with the true spirit of the show.

That's not going to impress anyone with GCE 'O' Level English Language.


Quod erat demonstrandum

parthena

I was only responding to an assumption regarding my articulation.

I've got an O-level in English too. I'm old school. Too old unfortunately.

Let's not try and outdo each other with qualifications. Might as well get out a ruler.

Back on topic!

I don't think the vote is rigged, but it certainly is stacked in favour of the judges when there are so few couples left.

IMO, the dance-off should have stopped this week or last week.

The judges over-stepped the mark on occasion this year but they are there to give their opinions on dancing and Arlene was asked a question whom she felt should go and gave her honest answer - perhaps she should have phrased it differently and not made comparisons but I'm still don't buy the bullying angle. I have experienced bullying at a verbal level - the judges are not goading people into losing their tempers or insulting someone because they think it's funny which is what I've gone through.

I don't think Christine or John winning would have been in the spirit of the show which is supposed to have something to do with dancing ability - on disrespect to either of them Sarge is a witty and clever man and Christine a nice person but at the end of the day this isn't purely a popularity contest and the day it becomes one the show will lose something.

What's so wrong with wanting to win? I doubt Austin Healey would have got very far as a sportsman if he hadn't had that attitude.

I was second hardest in the infants and I say she wasn't bullied!

PM for you Dolly- could you send me your thoughts

I do think that Matthew was right on ITT last night when he said that the judges were over-critical. As far as they are concerned, only the best dancers should get through to the end; not the hardest triers, best entertainers etc - unless they also happen to be technically accomplished. However, as far as large sections of the public are concerned, the former concepts are at least as important as the latter.

I don't believe there's any vote rigging going on. For starters, I sincerely doubt the BBC would risk another phone-voting scandal.

I agree about the judges being too rude, though. They should comment only on the quality of the dancing, not attempt to belittle the contestants - particularly when talking to the media, outside the confines of the SCD studio. I think some of the judges have got too big for their boots; someone ought to remind them that the stars of the show are the dancers (pros and celebs).

Yes it's not rigged, it's made very clear how it works. However, the way it works is very unfair.

If Christine had 1,000,000 votes and Tom had 1,000,001 votes, Christine is automatically in the dance off. In this situation, Lisa only had to get 1 vote to avoid the dance-off (in fact she probably would've still got the 1 point if she had no votes).

Okay then, it would appear that the marking system is flawed, as the judges are able to manipulate the scoring to counteract the public vote. Essentially then people may as well chuck their pennies down the drain, as the fix is in when it comes down to the last few weeks.

That is neither fair or satisfactory.

The thing about this programme is that it is both a dance competition and a popularity competition; judges (supposedly) mark on dance merit and the public vote who for who they enjoy watching.

And that is where the problem lies. It is neither one nor the other while simultaneously being both.

Yes but the judges are not working in a more PC marking system where vast numbers get 9 GCSEs. As and then a 2.1. They are working in a marking system where people do get 25% and fail and, most importantly, you tell them they have failed. Their job isn't to encourage- its to reflect performance - especially when its clear that some people are far worse than others and there is no time to improve drastically and its not a matter of career or life and death if they do fail.

Its only a problem for those people who get annoyed when they don't get the result they want.

People moan on here when poor dancers stay in the competition ahead of their favourites and then claim conspiracy when good dancers are ahead of their favourites on the judges leaderboard. Take off the blinkers for heavens sake and get some perspective. Its an entertainment show.

Without the judges influence on who stays and who goes and without their sometimes harsh comments it would be a dull show. Besides its not as if many here have the expertise to accurately mark a dance on its technical merits.

As opposed to the anti-judge vote manipulating the voting to counteract the judges scores.....

Its not a problem its a choice. Either the most popular people reach the final or as far as possible the best dancers.Either way the public can either then choose the best dancer left or the most popular left in the final.

Given its a dancing show and the most popular may not be able to dance at all, it seems more logical to me to have the best dancers in the final. The logic of having the most popular there is that they might as well just strip off if they are males or tell jokes or sit on the floor like JS or we could have made Tom champion after show one without seeing any of the girls at all.

The reason for the change was that leaving it to the public to decide with no ability for the judges to try and get the better dancers there had proved to produce poor results and at worst to be too dangerous. By 2007 the public vote alone had a demonstrable record of good people who might have done very well going early , bad people staying, predictable biases in the voting, the best dancers not even making the final and one sided finals without much quality dancing in them.

Strongly suspect saturdays judges leaderboard is already decided.
Will PM you in a mo

People have a right to moan, particularly when it's their money via the licence fee that pays for the show in the first place. The fact that the show then has the audacity to ask people to spend even more money on it via phone votes is shocking, particularly when the fix is in.

PM for you Hope in Hell. Could you let me know your thoughts

Do you honestly think that the BBC in the current climate could afford to fix results?

I've not once looked at the judges leaderboard this series and thought that doesn't by and large reflect the dancing I saw. I've yet to speak to any unbiased person who thinks anything fishy is going on.

I wouldn't put it past the judges to have sorted out the leaderboard formation already.