• X Factor Alex ‘will sell a million singles this week’

Reader views (63)

 Add your view

Get over yourselves! This is just a telly show! There are more important things in life. When was the last time you people turned the TV off and actually read a book or had a conversation with your spouse or family. Try it sometime.

- Jm, Los Angeles, USA

Jim, maybe you didn't read the whole of my message, but it was a mixture of joke and sarcasm, aimed at the BBC and the judges, not the viewing public. I.E. their attitudes towards us. Get it?

I do enjoy Strictly Come Dancing, as it happens, enjoyed Sargeants fumblings immensely, I just don't kid myself that it is some kind of serious dance contest, as Come Dancing once was but long since diminished.

If you did read the whole of my message, then I apologise, but in that case you need a sense of humour, or irony, or both.

- Md, London, UK

Someone has made £300,000 out of conning viewers, thats not an inconsiderate amount of money so people are right to kick up a stink.

- Steve, London

Elaine, Cambridge. This is a few comments, on one news story, on a webiste that INVITES comments (see, I can shout too) on a specific issue, viewed by a very small number of people in the grand scheme of things (no offence ES), the very same people that may comment on more weighty issues, and for someone to take the time to come on with a load of emotive nonsense...I suggest it is you that needs PERSPECTIVE!!! (more shoutyness).

Grow up.

- Md, London, UK

Why cant these shows do the phone call ins for free, like they do in the USA with American Idol?

- P I Staker, London

People dying, people getting murdered, people losing their jobs, the country going to ruin and people are kicking up over this!! Get a grip

- Phil, London

Wow MD, London - dullard mathematician you may be - nice person you certainly aren't. Doesn't sound like CD is really your bag - so why watch it? Some people do enjoy it and actually liked John Sargent - maybe they were the dizzy blonde womenfolk eh? Wouldn't you feel more at home watching some nazis stamp kittens..?

- Jim, london

oh my goodness. there are soldiers dying in Iraq. Lucie Blackman's parents are dealing with unspeakable horrors in Japan, yet we, the glorious British public have to get our knickers in a twist over something utterly trivial. Yes it was an error....but PERSPECTIVE PEOPLE PLEASE!!!!! It just doesn't matter... get over it.

- Elaine, cambridge

I watch this programme with the family and it's very entertaining for kids and adults as mindless entertainment. It's not supposed to be a documentary.

I never vote and don't care who wins. The BBC had a lack of planning about one statistical outcome, that's life. No-one lost more than about 50p.

There are more important things to worry about.

- Saunaing Tic Gill, London

About time too. Will the person responsible for this debacle resign? Oh no. Perhaps these premium rate calls should be banned altogether.

- Roger Slade, Winchester, Hampshire, England

It really is very simple to avoid, and should have been done from day 1. The viewer vote should be awarded proportiantely against the judges vote.

So s = v * j / 80 where s is the score, v is the viewer vote, j the judges score and 80 is the maximum judges vote. This will then need to be divided, or multiplied by (depending on the sleb) the "Judge's Hedge Constant" to ensure their particular favourite has a smooth passage through to the final without all the queeny hissy fit histrionics that was given out by the judges while John Sargeant remained popular with the scumbag voting public. The constant should be, say, 1,000,000.

To avoid the possibility of a complete fluke, another constant, the "Scumbag Voting Public Constant", shall be applied to anyone like John Sargeant (i.e. fat, ugly old men, or dizzy blonde women) that will not appeal to any of the Judges. A multiplication factor of say, 0.0000001 should suffice. This should go some way to ensure that their "memory" of the original Come Dancing can be preserved for much longer after people actually stopped watching it.

- Md, London, UK

In answer to some of the comments:-
William Grierson - the point system is explained every week. I was fully aware of it.
Casper Slides/Joanna Carling et al - It is not a generic audience. Not all who watch are brain dead, I have many educational qualifications, and have an excellent job with a good salary, therefore I certainly will not be complaining about not having money and I do not smoke or eat crisps.
Paul Croydon - love the irony.
To many commentors when something belongs to someone it is THEIR - which is a possessive pronoun - not There which is an adverb and means in that place etc.

- E Sullivan, London

The judges were absolutely correct. Lisa and Rachel on the night were better than Tom.

They made a ballsup in awarding joint 3 points. If had done joint 2 points, all would have been well. Simple !

- Mike, St Albans

Oh my god, there are some seriously ridiculous comments on here from people who clearly have never watched strictly. Obviously it wasn't contrived but it worked out the best decision - votes will roll over so nothing lost and do you seriously want to claim back about 50p on a phone vote? And as for the person complaining about the show dance - they do it every year in the final!

- Katie, Berks

should just be based on the viewers vote now anyway. The judges have their say but then its down to the public, that would have been fine for Saturday. None of them would have received the same votes that way!

- Nl, london

Maybe during the credit crunch you shouldn't be wasting your money on dross like these programmes and save that 80p of yours. It clearly means alot to you.
I think the BBC shouldn't refund the money and let this be a lesson to people about voting on popularity contests!

- S-M Hearmon, London, UK

Yet another 'fix' by the BBC. It is about time that the C.E. either got out or got to grips with the flagrant cheating that seems to be endemic within the Corporation. I shall not be watching the final as it seems that Tom, although the weaker of the three last Saturday, is destined to win!

- Lordjohn, Gloucester - England

If a million calls were made then the BBC has wasted some £150,000 of viewers money. I do not understand how you can roll forward the semifinal votes where people were being urged to save Tom to a final where you are being asked to vote for a winner. All these highly paid BBC people are now basically making it up as they stagger from one crisis to the next.

- Dave, London England

People who keep complaining about this sort of trivial stuff need to get a life

- Paul, croydon

The judges should all be sacked. They contrived this to ensure their favourites could not be beaten.

I hope next year, should this show return. It has a completely new set of judges and a change of dancers. Both judges and dancers believe they are the show, when it is the amateurs who are the real stars.

A new show with a new compere, A Judges panel of two men and two women, and dancers whose views should never be allowed air time.

The BBC should also ensure that camera work concentrates on the dancers and not fly around the room.

- Alan, Chingford. England

Re. Claire of London
A3,B2,C1 + A1,B2,3c = A4,B4,C4 = all in dance off

Are you sure? Would C not finish top because they got more of the public vote? So only couples A and B would actually be in the dance off?

- Billy, London

I think the BBC did the best they could.
Also I think a lot of people must have worked out that Tom couldn't be saved (as soon as they distributed 6 points for the top 2 instead of 5 points) and therefore didn't actually vote anyway. It wasn't that hard to work out that they couldn't finish top after the public vote.
Excellent decision by the BBC!

- Billy, London

So if its to be decided on the public vote alone- Why is it called STRICTLY Come Dancing and why are the judges even there? Media popularity will win the votes every time.eg John Sargent
And what of the absurd Show Dance next week. Circus act is more like it. Just like the whole show has become. Shame.

- Ken Day, Beaconsfield

The only thing that really matters in this confusing story is whether or not the BBC has been honest and open with the public.

I suspect it hasn't, because a full investigation of what's happened would have at least to allow the possibility of the show being taken off.

But it's a certainty that heads would roll if an embarrassing gap appeared in television schedules this close to Christmas ; an unthinkable, to-be-avoided-at-all-costs scenario for the BBC.

In short, this show must go on regardless next Saturday, and a winner will be "celebrated" amidst the usual mix of hyped-up emotion, tears and orchestrated whooping we've come to expect on television.

It'll be mission accomplished for the Beeb!

- Mike, Cardiff U.K.

Clair of London is right here BUT BUT BUT --much worse is at stake here. Can we honestly belive that anybody and everybody who voted on saturday night was aware of this formula?...answer...of course not...thus the BBC is at fault here.

- William Grierson, kIMPTON-uk

Given that this result could only have happened with three contestants I think the BBC did the best they could. My vote and those of others I know will count next week - we have lost nothing and have achieved a 3 person final which we would have liked to see anyway. what a fuss about nothing!

- Louise Nixon, London

The standard is extremely high this year and the comments that Tom would have been voted out are not correct. If he and his partner had given a superb dance in the dance off, then another couple would have gone out. In my opinion the taking forward of the votes to next week is the right and proper decision, when the votes of the public only will be counted and the winner determined by public opinion and not judges. Excellent decision by the BBC

- Terry White, Berwick upon Tweed UK

Strictly show bosses got their maths wrong, and they've still got it wrong!

They say the reason the decision was made was because of the joint top positions
meaning Tom Chambers was always going to be in the dance off....

however, if you work out the possibilities with 3 people in the semi final it was always going to be that whoever came last would definitely be in the dance off.
That the other two came joint top is just a red herring.

If anyone had bothered to think it through they would have known before the show even begun that the judges' bottom would definitely be in the dance off.

There is no excuse to change the rules of the game halfway through play and after a million or more viewers have voted.

- Susie, West Midlands

Wind your neck in the lot of you! Its the first time in history of the show in the UK and US that this has happened. When only 3 people remain AND when two are tied is THE ONLY TIME this could ever have happened so get over it. The votes cast still count and will be held up next week, so it's not as if they count for nothing.

Thing that gets me about you people is I gaurantee ala the Ross/Brand debacle that the same people complaining are the same people who didnt bother to vote in the first place. Get a life!

- Jeff, Lisburn

Money should be refunded. Some viewers legitimately vote for the dances seen. Say Rachel falls over three times next week and is carrying numerous votes over from last week. Can't be done.

- Dorothy Paterson, Sutton Coldfield, UK

I know I'm not alone here. Can anyone remember the when each and every programme didn't exist purely to extract money via phone in's. Now, Everything from the news to cookery programmes seem geared to get our call / vote / pound of flesh. It makes for turgid highly manipulative programming.
Frankly, I believe my licence fee should cover all such voting to beeb programmes, it should be a free sideline for the viewer. A 'press your red button' now type of harmless (and free) distraction. As is it's a corrupt money making excercise. It's time the goverment acted - if these things can't be properly regulated or managed fairly (and they can't!) then they should be banned.
Peeved off ... I'm away to read a book .. I'll miss ya Brucie

- All Foned Out, Belfast

This isn't going to be the world's most interesting post but.... here is some maths.

Even if the top 2 couples hadn't tied on the judge's vote, there was still no way the bottom couple could have escaped the dance off.
A3,B2,C1 + A1,B2,3c = A4,B4,C4 = all in dance off
A3,A2,C1 + A2,B1,C3 = A5,B4,C4 = couple B and C in dance off.

The lowest couple after the judges vote would always be in the dance off when the usual voting system is used on anything less than 4 couples.

Therefore, the whole of Saturdays program may as well not have happened.

Sorry.

- Claire, Londn

In response to Nam, London: I agree that the maths suggests that the bottom person would always be in the dance off, EXCEPT that in the event of a tie, that tie is broken by the person who had the most public votes being saved. So IF the score had been 3,2,1 after the judges vote then the public could have saved Tom if the public had voted 1,2,3 respectively. However, with a tie for first place this is not possible. I didn't realise this till my wife pointed it out.

- Paul, Plymouth, UK

If six points are available and two couples tie then the total for these two places should be divided equaly. On saturday night the top two should have had 2.5 votes each or had there been a tie for 2nd and 3rd they should have had 1.5 votes each. The prblem arose because efectively the judges introduced an extra point which was not available to the voying public and even thogu on the night Mr chambers was poorer in performance than on other occassions it would have been unfair to effectively put him out. Given biased judging he would have gone in the dance off( his jive although not grat was much better than the first attempt and yet got the same mark. Great performances by both girls especially Rachel but their errors were ignored in the judging. Finally to the people who are angry that Mr Chambers should have gone. This would have meant that all the people who voted for him to avoid the dance off would have wasted their votes and money. I think Mr Chambers rightly or wrongly possibly obtained the biggest public support by far and insted of rolling the votes over the BBC should publish them

- Peter Ferrier, aylesbury bucks

Why is everyone making this a much bigger issue than it is?

Part of the idea of Strictly is that the audience can vote to save their favourites and the way the scoring worked on Saturday meant that Tom Chambers couldn't be saved, so it would be worse for the BBC to allow people to vote for Tom and do nothing about it. Atleast this way they aren't conning people out of their money.

I think the BBC made the right decision in sending all three through, but they should probably have refunded all the votes made.

As for the scoring faux pas, if this hasn't happened so far in 6 series you can't really blame the BBC for not seeing it coming. It is also a live show and they didn't really have time to sort something out before the show ended.

- Jenny, London

Who's really lost out here?

The people who voted to save whomever they picked have now voted for that person to win in the final and their favourite hasn't been put off the show.

Surely they would only have lost out if the vote had taken place and their favourite had left?

- Craig Walker, Dunfermline, Fife

Tom has to leave before the final. If he wins after all this kerfuffle, it would taint SCD and the BBC.

- Paul, Ealing

The problem with the BBC is an arrogant disregard of it's customers opinions. When something goes wrong that affects so many of those who voted they need to think before they decide what to do and not defend a knee-jerk decision against a swell of adverse opinion. They could have let the telephone vote conclude properly. Then obvious solution was to grasp the nettle and declare the evening's vote null and void and refund everyones money.
As it is viewers paranoia has been excited to new heights which was also foreseeable!

- John Bisset, Cardiff

Deborah, you've misunderstood. It is not an issue of how many couples are to be in the final. There was supposed to be three last year, but Kelly Brook sadly had to pull out and they made do with two.

The issue is that there was no way, mathematically, that the viewer's vote could have prevented Tom from being in the dance off, not necessarily from getting to the final. The point of voting, spending money, is to "save" your prefered dancer and to do that, and to be assured of being in the final, they need to avoid the dance off.

- Md, London, UK

For goodness sake how long is it going to take people to realise they are being made fools of? The best answer to all this is for people to stop phoning, and not just for Strcitly but for all such programmes that ask viewers to. As for the BBC so-called executives, I have absolutely no doubt that none of them thought about the problem until some desparate employee rang the alarm bell. I genuinely believe that there is little brain in the BBC's management structure.

- Daniel, London

Exactly Dee! When John left the show they were all of a sudden one couple down. At some point something needed to happen to fix that so that there could still be 3 couples in the final and hence a first, second, third. Rather than losing out on revenue generated from phone votes, handily a tie happened and they've come up with this excuse to ensure there are 3 couples in the final! Let's not forget the money raised by phone votes doesn't go to Children In Need anymore but straight to the BBC itself..........
All a bit dodgy if you ask me.....

- Ali, London, London, UK

Let's just wind up the Beeb.

- Roger Slade, Winchester, Hampshire, England

It was always supposed to be a 3 couple final, but John's departure caused a glitch. This was bound to happen all along, otherwise the voting would have been allowed to stand to decide which other couple were in the dance off with Tom and Camilla (who should have gone anyway as they were the worst dancers on the night)

- Deborah, London

Common maths that a 5 year old could do would show that the person in 3rd place no matter what the the phone votes did could not save them from Dance off. This move by the BBC was purely to keep there employee Tom Chambers in to the end. Shame on you Beeb, Firstly you allow bullying on TV, earlier with John and now changing the rules for your own benefit, I hope Lisa Wins.

- Nam, London

Seems to be a case of the BBC looking after its own - bet it wouldn't have happened if a non-BBC actor or ANOther had been involved. How come we never get to see/hear how many votes have been cast, anyway?

- Anne, London

I swear when John Sargeant left the said there would be three couples in the final....

- Dee, London

yet again the public who watch this rubbish get sucked in to voting... these people should really think about their own lives and stop being fed brain numbing tv..
fools the lot of them... lose your money, maybe you will learn one day, but i doubt it..

- Joanna Carling, london england

I suspect many thousands of keen followers of 'Strictly' are like me and don't vote and have never been tempted to. The dancing is a spectacle in its own right and, in my view, it's fair enough that all three couples are in the final. I can't take seriously all the fuss about a bit of colourful froth that cheers up dull winter evenings.
Getting uptight about the fairness of phone voting for a show when the entire economy is going down the pan seems a bit perverse to me too.

- Kiwi Expat, London, UK

The solution is really easy - let everyone vote for free this Saturday!

Why are the BBC so slow to resolve these stupid issues?

- Wendy K, London

Nobody who-in all innocence- rang in on saturday evening had a clue as the point scoring side of the rules. Neither did the show--because the sytem was NOT explained by the presenters before the phone lines were opened. BBC error.

- William Grierson, kIMPTON-uk

Only a complete and utter brain dead moron would waste money phoning into a show like this; I have absolutey no sympathy for them. The same people wil be moaning soon that in the recession they don't have enough money to buy their fags and crisps.

- Casper Slides, France at the moment

The level of competence in the BBC is the inverse of their pay. This problem started when the BBC and Judges forced John out. They knew that they would only have three couples in the semifinal so the probability of something like this happening was quite high. The BBC expects every organisation to consider and have plans in place for all possible risks - anything goes wrong and their reporters will be accusing people of having failed.

- Dave, London England

After all the bad publicity surrounding phone votes in the past, I wonder how thick the British Public must be to continue to use their phones to vote!

- Raminder Bhalla, Northolt

It seems to me that the whole problem stems from the BBC, which is not allowed to raise revenue from advertising, being allowed to raise revenue from phone-ins. The natural result is that the BBC shows loads of dumb-*rsed contests for people to phone in and vote for: it makes the BBC one step off watching the shopping channel.

The BBC should be showing programmes which help people do their maths homework, or set up a business, or learn about history and culture or a new language.

I cannot think of a better metaphor for the mess the UK is in: loads of people sitting in armchairs wasting money phoning to vote on a phoney voting contest for some B-list celebrities - then they all get through to the final because the judges/BBC are too spineless to make a clear decision in case it's the 'wrong' decision. It's a competition . . . except it's not: to make a genuine competition the phone-in votes would need to be FREE.

- Roz, Chamonix, France

What's wrong with the couple in third (of three) being sure to be in the dance -off anyway? Mind you, the BBC have needed to get three into the final somehow ever since John S wandered off and destryoed the schedule.

- Paul, London

So...a number of people voted to save their favourite from the dance-off and they all succeeded...not a story. Leave the BBC alone

- Chris E, London

Its impossible to refund all these telephone calls. The BBC should give the money to charity asap before the mud dries as its already sticking.

- Jack Spratt, Richmond England

This business of VOTES, which raise money for the broadcaster should be banned. It is open to all sorts of irregularities and brings the worst sort of popular television to our screens.
I would ban also the news readers, particularly of the local London News on BBC1 from asking for opinions by email. It is totally stupid. They read out one or two messages, which cannot be representative of the whole.
Should I also ban messages to online newspapers??

- William, London

The BBC is taking some dumb people for a ride. With only 3 contestants, and 2 having to go into a dance off, whatever the judges decided could not be reversed by the public vote.

The BBC knew this before the program was aired; the BBC knew this before they encouraged the public to vote, the BBC knew this before they opened the phone lines.

The phone revenue is not for charity as some of the public still seem to believe.

So why was anyone bothering to phone?

Worst of all this program has now been pitched by the BBC as a children’s program, that is why it is put out at the prime viewing time for children.

The only conclusion was that the BBC was hoping to get the gullible (mainly children) to vote and create telephone revenue having already arrived at the result.

- Ian, Reading, England

I can understand how there can be a tie between the four judges, but how can there be a genuine tie in the voting by millions of viewers?

- Bloke, London

The BBC are right not to refund. It was one of those situations nobody anticipated or foresaw, a genuine mistake. You'd have to have an O level in Maths to have worked it out. Whittingdale is wrong to have asked for a refund. People vote also to show their loyalty to a particular dancer, even though they know he's rubbish and never going to win. Just look at Sargeant. Its the nature of the programme.

- Dhanraj, Basildon Essex

"The team is doing everything in their power to ensure the votes are carried through to the final round, so that no-one will have voted in vain."

Well, of course that only works if the person you voted for one week is the person you want to vote for the following week. That person may dance like a complete plum in the final...does that mean someone voting would have to vote for their favourite in the final twice...once to show their approval, and again to nulify the vote for the other person?

- Md, London, UK

A total sham from start to finish for the BBC.Another total rip off for phone in programmes from the BBC.Well done!

- Selwyn Channon, epsom

Add your comment