Strictly Come Dancing: what is WRONG with people?

[coventrygull]

Anyone. And I mean ANYONE who feels moved to vote on a TV show (be that by BT landline, mobile, or 'via the red button') is a sad f*** who seriously needs to sit back and take stock of their lives. And by that I mean they need to look at which tragic series of events has led them to the point whereby they are sat in front of their TV of an evening, actively attempting to influence the outcome of a vote that is (a) inevitably rigged and (b) nobody with an IQ above 14 gives a f*** about.

They do not deserve refunds. They do not deserve sympathy. They just need treatment. Urgently.

I just read this out to the Mrs. She votes every week. She is not amused. Well it made me laugh.

 

[clippedgull]

It's all John Sargeants' fault for pulling out and leaving 3 couples in the semi final! Well at least according to the mass debate on the BBC web site!

 

[coventrygull]

It's all John Sargeants' fault for pulling out and leaving 3 couples in the semi final! Well at least according to the mass debate on the BBC web site!

Is that the Strictly site? That is one hilarious message board. Makes us on here sound almost normal.

 

[clippedgull]

Is that the Strictly site? That is one hilarious message board. Makes us on here sound almost normal.

That's the one!

 

[Martlet]

Anyone. And I mean ANYONE who feels moved to vote on a TV show (be that by BT landline, mobile, or 'via the red button') is a sad f*** who seriously needs to sit back and take stock of their lives. And by that I mean they need to look at which tragic series of events has led them to the point whereby they are sat in front of their TV of an evening, actively attempting to influence the outcome of a vote that is (a) inevitably rigged and (b) nobody with an IQ above 14 gives a f*** about.

Unlike, of course, people who sit on forums all day moaning about a third (nearly fourth) tier football team, and attempting to influence the outcome of matches by wearing their "lucky socks" or hurling abuse at a hapless third (nearly fourth) tier referee.

Oh wait no ... that'll be me....

 

[Trufflehound]

I don't like to be a heavy bread-head man, but 5p is 5p.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

15p would buy you one of THESE. It's not to be SNIFFED at.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

BBC don't make a "profit" from phone calls, never have.

Any excess revenue used to go to Children in Need, but because of new rules surrounding the phone-in problems, there is now no excess revenue at all.

The call you pay is simply the cost of the call.

From the BBC site:

Since January 2008, the BBC no longer gives money raised by phone votes to charity. The money raised by Strictly Come Dancing phone votes pays for running the phone vote system itself. No money goes to Children in Need. Rules were changed after last year's phone votes scandals.

I find it very hard to believe that it costs 15p to 'run the phone voting system'.
TV phone voting is rotten to the core and should be illegal. Since it first appeared about 10 years ago it was identified as a huge revenue source. The idea of including a small charitable donation with a massive 'admin fee', is pure psychology - it will net more profit in the admin fee as massively more people will vote if they think its 'going to charity'. The TV companies took a few irrelevant token hits last year (the Blue Peter puppy vote - or whatever) in the hope that the huge voting scams involving millions will not be examined. By going straight from now on they are hoping like hell that their past misdemeanors will go uninvestigated.

All TV voting should be banned. Like the national lottery they are a tax on the stupid.

 

[bhafc99]

My missus is addicted to this stuff, though to be fair she rarely if ever votes.

As the show ended on Saturday, and I started to wake from my stupor, it was immediately obvious that the scoring was knackered. If two contestants are tied on 3 points, and the other has 1, then clearly the guy on 1 point is going to end up in the bottom two, even if he wins the phone vote.

Why any numpty then phoned to vote is beyond me. Surely even the most brain dead could see there was no point voting?

 

[coventrygull]

My missus is addicted to this stuff, though to be fair she rarely if ever votes.

As the show ended on Saturday, and I started to wake from my stupor, it was immediately obvious that the scoring was knackered. If two contestants are tied on 3 points, and the other has 1, then clearly the guy on 1 point is going to end up in the bottom two, even if he wins the phone vote.

Why any numpty then phoned to vote is beyond me. Surely even the most brain dead could see there was no point voting?

My wife voted

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Unlike, of course, people who sit on forums all day moaning about a third (nearly fourth) tier football team, and attempting to influence the outcome of matches by wearing their "lucky socks" or hurling abuse at a hapless third (nearly fourth) tier referee.

Oh wait no ... that'll be me....

Hey, I pay in the region of £20 per game at Withdean to watch stuff FAR less entertaining and considerably less glamorous than SCD, yet do I demand, much less receive, a refund?

Never in twenty two years therefore I feel entirely justified in mocking the losers whose state of contentment depends entirely on which sequinned D List celebrity wins a meaningless prize next weekend.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Couldn't agree more, Edna, but the list of saddos is long and undistinguished, and includes not only the papers and the 'irate' voters, but the BBC itself.

They are now a victim of the ludicrous monster they created. If they didn't spend quite such an absurd amout of their schedule using supposedly proper news journalists discussing this slighty ridiculous show, they wouldn't have reaped this particular whirlwind.

I've lost count of the number of the times I've almost thrown my coffee at the TV over breakfast when Bill Turnbull has found some new and even more irritating reason to talk about Strictly rather than some actual news that's happening in the world (did you know? apparently he was on it once years ago).

 

[Pavilionaire]

The BBC is directly responsible for the public's lack of awareness of real news issues. By consistently f***ing up they are selfishly hogging the headlines, so that real news is passing people by unnoticed.

It doesn't help that 5Live make it the subject on their phone-in on Monday morning. Presumably they had some trifling matter to debate, but that was quickly ditched in favour of the more pressing matter of "Has Tom Chambers Got a Result?"

Dumbing down? Too right!