BIB does that mean Joe Wilkinson took over her role? Or maybe Carol Vorderman?

No she isn't too shy for TV as she's very good on Countdown. She does sometimes come across as slightly shy but that is part of her charm and she is better for it.

I've never watched much of the 8 out of ten cats version so can't comment but it may be she is too shy for that show or not just a good fit.

I simply have a different opinion to you that's all. It's entirely subjective. You seem to have real difficulty accepting a different view to your own, going on this exchange.

I'm absolutely fine with you having the opinion she should always finish a contestant's sum instead of starting a new one. I disagree obviously, but it's up to you.

But why you can't accept a different view to that I don't know. Resorting to sarcasm, calling your opinion a fact, etc, I don't really get it tbh.

Nope.. Claudia Winkleman & Rob Beckett. But they were brilliant. Far more entertaining than Rachel (Johhny Vegas took over from Sean)

And I really don't get why you can't accept the evidence on the screen and admit that Rachel does sometimes just make mistakes. I don't think it is an opinion as opposed to fact because I know what I have factually seen. But we're clearly not going to agree on this so best to just leave it.

You're first sentence sums up my previous post perfectly. 'Can't accept the evidence', etc. It's just bizarre.

You're right that we're not going to agree, but that's not the issue here any more tbh. The issue is how you can't handle different views or interpretations on things.

No, the issue is and always has been since you started contributing to this topic, that you can't accept what is on the screen in front of you and for some weird reason cannot accept that Rachel isn't infallible and instead make up bizarre and hardly credible reasons to justify her actions. And now you are deflecting from that and trying to make it personal about me. Very strange.

"Can't accept what is front of you", etc. You're treating subjective interpretation as fact.

I mean....how can anyone try and have a debate when one person does that? It's futile.

Going back to my original post on this matter, Rachel clearly ignored an easy way to correct a contestant's answer and instead did a far more complicated solution. This is fact, not subjective interpretation. I interpreted that as a mistake on her part which all the evidence in front of us, plus the way she has reacted to similar situations at other times, supports. For some reason only known to you, you decided to ignore all this evidence and postulate the theory that she hadn't in fact missed the easy option but for some bizarre reason which you have continuously failed to explain except with more and more strange and unlikely theories, she deliberately chose to ignore it and instead do the more complicated version. I do think you are getting the facts of what was shown on screen and your own opinions confused.

Rachel didn't make a mistake in wardrobe today. Looking fantastic.

Thats two easy number rounds that Colin(?) has failed on.

Yes. Both were a doddle. The first in particular was one of them that's so easy that Rachel doesn't bother writing it down when the contestant explains their working.

Blimey....

Who's using "schoolboy sarcasm" now?

If you think saying 'Blimey' is sarcasm then I'm not even sure how to respond any more tbh.

That's good news.

Is Dan Walker not doing it this week? Julia Bradbury is nice though.

I agree that it's often useful to show how a particular method could have been slightly tweaked to obtain the correct answer. But it's not a "mistake" not to do it. If she doesn't happen to have spotted that particular way herself because she's arrived at the answer a different way, she's often unlikely to spot it while she's writing down the (she's doing the sums, checking they haven't re-used numbers etc.)

That's all there is to it. It's not an error, or a mistake, and while it's obvious to you watching it home, it might not be if you were there talking to the contestant, interpreting their formula, writing it on the board, checking the validity etc.

You're wrong to say Carol always did it though That's also a fact.

Forgot to say before but thanks for the reply.

Well whatever the correct word, she missed something obvious twice recently, and the second time even when the contestant himself had spotted his error, but she just ignored him. Some have claimed she did this on purpose, which to me is ridiculous. Yesterday she spotted the contestant's error in a similar situation and said he would kick himself, but it could be of course that she only spotted the error as that had been her own method.

I think describing it as a "mistake" is what got roger's back up.


Yes, that seems most likely doesn't it, by the very fact that she said "you might kick yourself" after about his first or second step (because it matched her solution so far, but he had declared one away). Unless you think as she writes up each step of their answer, she should be recalculating every possible onward sum to see if the target was still achievable. That's probably what you think Carol used to do, after all

She also specifically directed the "you might kick yourself" to the champion Paul who was giving his formula (because he's consistently scoring 100+), Nick then picked it up and said it to both contestants. I think she intentionally doesn't try to show up contestants by going "why didn't you just do this instead, you dolt?" when it's already difficult enough for them under the lights and the pressure in the studio, and, you know, it's not their main job to do that.

No I don't expect her to recalculate every step. I do expect her to realise that 10-9 gives the same result as 10/10, but leaves a 10 spare to take off rather than a 9.

Julia Bradbury seems to have popped up all the place this last week.Must have something to plug

Yeah, but it's not like 10/10 = 1 was the last thing he did though, it was much earlier in the solution. Again, if she hadn't already seen that way, she should be checking every sum of his to see if he could achieve the same result with different numbers, just in case any of them are left over at the end? The simple fact of the matter is that if she hasn't already seen that solution, she probably won't spot it while she's validating their formula. And, even if she had, it's not always going to be appropriate to point it out anyway for several reasons,.

News series on ITV ‘Best Walks with a View’ starts on Friday February 19th at 8pm on ITV. '