Strictly. John Sargeant.

[Screaming J]

Why do people take this and X factor so seriously??

They are light entertainment programmes on the telly on a Saturday night. I'm not being snobbish about them because I watch them too. But f f s; nobody's died!!!

 

[Knotty]

Are Burnley better than Chelsea? No, but did we not laugh at the Chelsea losing.

Not the same thing at all. If you had to vote for the better team, it would have to be Chelsea, but you don't vote on football matches.

 

[coventrygull]

I don't think it's anything to do with that.

It's a significant few voters enjoying the childish, dubious 'power' of creating a false result on a television show and being able to congratulate themselves on doing so.

I think there are probably loads of reasons why people vote for John. I am curious that you can bet on this programme when you can affect the result by phoning in.

 

[Knotty]

I think there are probably loads of reasons why people vote for John.

Being the best dancer is not one of them. Screwing the programme certainly is though.

 

[Gully]

Don't you all think that this is a sort of warped way at getting back at the TV companies for all the times that they fixed things (like the name of the Blue Peter cat) and charged punters for voting, even though it was a worthless process, this is the general public saying that you can't tell me what to think or how to vote. My money is on John Sergeant getting all the way to the final.

 

[BensGrandad]

If the judges gave double the points and the public the same as now ie the judges gave 2/3rd and the public 1/3rd it would men that for the judges order to be changed it would need a lot of votes from the public to move somebody off of the bottom as using that system JS as bottom would have got 2 pts, the next one 4 so for him to avoid being last he would have to beat at least the next on the list above him plus 1 other to get the 3 pts needed to jump off of the bottom.

 

[Knotty]

I am curious that you can bet on this programme when you can affect the result by phoning in.

As an individual you'd probably have to phone in too many times to have a real influence on the outcome.

 

[coventrygull]

As an individual you'd probably have to phone in too many times to have a real influence on the outcome.

I don't know a lot about betting but aren't there some dodgy syndicates out there?

 

[Bozza]

I am curious that you can bet on this programme when you can affect the result by phoning in.

Hasn't it always been thus though? It's been possible to bet on SPOTY for yonks.

 

[BensGrandad]

The answer to all of this is that the TV companies are not interested in the winner or the actual program but the amount of money that the phone in votes earn them

 

[Knotty]

I don't know a lot about betting but aren't there some dodgy syndicates out there?

In this contest I think that the number of calls required to guarantee a win for JS would be so great that the bookies would smell a rat instantly and all bets would be off.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Gully,i don't think you are far wrong i your remarks.

 

[clapham_gull]

The answer to all of this is that the TV companies are not interested in the winner or the actual program but the amount of money that the phone in votes earn them

BBC doesn't make a profit the calls. Big Brother doesn't make a profit on the calls either.

The extra money on previous BBC calls were given to charity, but the rules have been changed to make the process "more transparent".

 

[coventrygull]

In this contest I think that the number of calls required to guarantee a win for JS would be so great that the bookies would smell a rat instantly and all bets would be off.

but isn't this already happening?

 

[Bozza]

but isn't this already happening?

But JS still has no chance of winning, does he?

What are the rules for the actual final? I'm assuming the judges have a major contribution to the outcome which is why JS is still long odds.

 

[coventrygull]

But JS still has no chance of winning, does he?

What are the rules for the actual final? I'm assuming the judges have a major contribution to the outcome which is why JS is still long odds.

I don't know. I will have to ask the Mrs. She is the one that got me into watching this. I must admit I find it funny that My wife and step daughter are getting a bit miffed at John getting through

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Public,who no nothing ! V The Panel who know it all. Only one winner.

 

[csider]

Why? They are dance experts who have been asked to judge on DANCING programme. Why should they be made to squirm? JS is clearly hopeless at dancing but that shouldn't get in the way of childish, self-indulgent, "look what we can do", viewer-power, should it?

you want to get out more..............

 

[Stat Brother]

As James the pro dancer with Cheri Lunghi pointed out this a dance competition not a popularity poll. John Sergeants continuance has made this now a laughing stock and an embarrasement. I think that he should be 'injured' next week and remove himself from the contest so that it regains some credibillity. 2 far better dancers have been dumped and more will follow so much so I think that it will put the continuance of the show in its present format in doubt. This will upset mine and many more wives i would think.

Can you please talk me through the connection between credibility and early evening Saturday night television?

'Bring on the wall'.

 

[Brovion]

Why do people take this and X factor so seriously??

They are light entertainment programmes on the telly on a Saturday night. I'm not being snobbish about them because I watch them too. But f f s; nobody's died!!!

Exactly. It's NOT a dancing competition any more than the Generation Game was an entrance exam for the SAS - or the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award is about sporting achievment. It's just Saturday evening entertainement for the housebound elderly or people who haven't got a social life and should be treated as such.

PS - I agree with coventry, a binfest about Strictly Come Dancing! It's gonna be a good week!