http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2008/12/strictly_confusing.html en-gb 30 Tue 15 Dec 2009 14:09:06 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2008/12/strictly_confusing.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2008/12/strictly_confusing.html?page=18#comment11 X-Factor, Strictly Come dancing, Big Brother, isn't it about time all of these reality shows were binned? X-Factor is simply a cash cow for Simon Cowell, Strictly Come Dancing is a show the BBC have desperately thought up to rival X-Factor, and whilst I understand it may raise some money for charity, I'm sure License payers money is used to promote C list celebs who are keen on remaining in the public eye. As for Celeb BB, the less said about that the better. This is a show that when introduced revolutionised TV, but has now had its day as again it has been turned over to d-list celebs craving the highs of their previous 5 minutes of fame. Whether the voting of Strictly come dancing was wrong or not who cares. The money still goes to charity. Isn't that the idea as opposed to who gets crowned the champion. This is surely a by product. If the BBC spent its licence money on more old school Saturday night tv this furore soon be forgotten. All of this is billed as entertainment. However, it is not entertainment but ego massaging has beens. Tue 23 Dec 2008 16:10:27 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2008/12/strictly_confusing.html?page=16#comment10 I do worry about the BBC.My 6 Year old pointed out that it did not matter whether the judges in Strictly caused a draw at the top or not!In a three couple system with an equal weighting to judges and public. The couple who scored the lowest was always going to be in the dance off.The funny bit is that if the judges had scored them 1,2,3 and the public had swapped the top and bottom we would have ended up with all the couples on 4 Points! A three way dance off! Mon 15 Dec 2008 10:51:16 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2008/12/strictly_confusing.html?page=15#comment9 Following on from the voting problems on Saturdays Strictly Come Dancing, and to apply the rules fairly, shoudn't Austin and Erin be reinstated. Because when they were eliminated, and the ties for first place that week, there was no way in which they could be saved by the public vote Mon 15 Dec 2008 10:48:39 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2008/12/strictly_confusing.html?page=13#comment8 my family vote for who they think danced the best on the night and do not want the votes to go on to next week without our permission. Someone else may warrant the vote next week, I would have thought the BBC could have worked this fiasco out before people were encouraged to start voting. That would have been honest and above board. The explanation did not really ring true as there did not seem to be any time left in the show for the usual results and the dance off! Mon 15 Dec 2008 09:58:01 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2008/12/strictly_confusing.html?page=11#comment7 I cannot disagree with Ester Ranzen more. The show is about who are the best dancers, not how brave or popular they are or any other criteria. The best dancers should win as voted by the unknowledgeable public and the more professional judges. Mon 15 Dec 2008 09:35:18 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2008/12/strictly_confusing.html?page=10#comment6 Once again the BBC makes a fool of itself with strictly come dancing. It was obvious the week John Sergeant resigned and the still continued with a dance off therefore losing 2 contestance instead of 1 that the show was heading for a problem and now it has arrived. Why the producers of programmes appear to lack common sense I do not know. Mon 15 Dec 2008 08:57:36 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2008/12/strictly_confusing.html?page=8#comment5 On the news it has been stated that due to 2 couples receiving equal votes caused the problem as it meant that Tom would automatically be in the dance off. It made no difference that they tied at the top as Tom could not have got to the top even if he had got most votes from the public. Had he got 3 from the public vote he would have had a total of 4. If the person with 3 votes from the judges had got the least votes from the public they would have had a total of 4 and that would have meant that the person 2nd with the judges would have been 2nd with the public and in that case all 3 couples would have drawn. Any other combination of votes from the public and only those in 1st or 2nd place could have been top of the leader board afte the public vote and Tom would have been in the dance off. If the dance off had gone on as normal no-one would have thought it odd had Tom been in it and been knocked out as the other 2 couples were much better on the night. Sun 14 Dec 2008 20:45:25 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2008/12/strictly_confusing.html?page=6#comment4 I would like to know why and how John Sergeant got onto the show in the first place. This is not a personality contest after all, or he would have come shining through. It is a contest to find the finest ballroom dancers. And he did not come anywhere near that. The public who clearly enjoyed him on the show, in the end made a mockery of him. I maintain that no judge has the right to insult him in the manner one did. I don't like any of the judges because they are far too high and mighty. They could never dance so expertly as these competitors and I take my hat off to them all. To my mind when there are three couples, only one can win. You cannot have all three unless they all scored the same marks. I do think there is favouritism on this programme and these judges are barely professional the way they all shout at the same time. Anybody know what became of John? Such a personable man. Portly OK, but a gentleman who knows how to dance with grace. Sun 14 Dec 2008 19:20:13 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2008/12/strictly_confusing.html?page=5#comment3 As an ex pat now living in Corfu, Greece I find it sad that the British public are that concerned about a television program to create headlines on BBC news. Sun 14 Dec 2008 18:51:03 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2008/12/strictly_confusing.html?page=3#comment2 Yet again the producers have interfered with public opinion. We wanted John Seargent to remain but by a combination of at least vocal abuse from the judges and one bad sportsman of a dancer he wisely chose to withdraw. We shall never know the other pressures he may have suffered. This week they have chosen to disregard the rules again. What about next week when again there could be a joint number one? The only way to prevent that will be to interfere with the judges. So come clean judges in whose pay are you? Here are three possible answers:-1 The licence payer 2 the phone companies 3 A contestant or is it alreday decided? Sun 14 Dec 2008 18:26:19 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2008/12/strictly_confusing.html?page=1#comment1 Striclly Voting systemI assume the public votes are ranked to give First, Second and Third places etc. In the case of three contestants, First gets 3 points, Second two points, and Third one point, exactly the same process as the judges system. Hence in last nights Strictly Tom got 1 point from the judges for 3rd place. If Tom was then First in the viewers voting he would get another 3 points to go with his 1 point from the judges i.e. 4 points. Similarly if second he gets 1+2 = 3 points, and if third , 1+1= 2 points.Is this a correct example of the scoring system used in Strictly? Sun 14 Dec 2008 15:41:22 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2008/12/strictly_confusing.html?page=0#comment0 Dancing on the head of a pin.Freed by Courts? Cafe Royale? Closing? Subject: Forced marriage doctor freed by courts - How easily we were scandalised then Anagram: Met rococos - Cadbury refrigerated Ford - honestly Cad line weed - aware - wishesNot this millennium eh BBC? Sun 14 Dec 2008 13:48:52 GMT+1