Why today's Strictly Come Dancing decision is a bad lesson for children

I watch Strictly Come Dancing with my daughter, who is six. She understands how the programme works. It's on a voting system - the judges get half the votes, and the public gets the rest. What could be clearer, and what more fun? It means the public get a real say in what happens - whether the judges like it or not.

Despite all the kerfuffle over this (in today's Times, Phil Collins called for Sergeant to pull out and claimed he wasn't entertaining. I would completely disagree), it's completely and utterly fair. All the dancers know that they are in a competition whereby they need to impress the public and the judges. Both are vitally important. You can be a great dancer, but if the public don't like you, or you don't come across as fun or sympathetic (see Rachel Stevens and her partner Vincent Simone two weeks ago or Gabby Logan in the last series), you are in danger of going out. If the public didn't have a say, the show would lose a huge part of its appeal.

I am, therefore, incredibly disappointed that all the pressure put on John Sergeant seems to have persuaded him to pull out. This makes a travesty of a television programme which had very clear rules and sends a poor message to the children of this country! Yes, I know I sound like I'm on a very high horse, but Strictly Come Dancing is watched by millions of kids. Today they have learnt that people can whinge on and on about rules even though those rules couldn't be less ambiguous, and seen bullying have its desired result. Neither are good lessons to learn, especially during anti-bullying week...

Read School Gate on:

What children's book inspired you?

The best TV shows set in schools

The 15 best characters in Grange Hill

The 10 best educational TV programmes

Comments

[Derek Clifton]

From day one this show was a farce and culminated in a balls-up at the end; everyone and his brother knows that a dead heat for first place always eliminates the third placed people/greyhound/racehorse/Olympic Championship and the rest is history; why doesn't the B.B.C. get some advice from anyone before making decisions on things that do not really matter anyway!

[Franziska]

I found it very childish that the public kept him in just to annoy the judges, who clearly had to judge him for his dancing skills. Yes, John is a nice man but come on, he doesn't have the most dazzling personality. I doubt that John was bullied into leaving the show. Why don't you just tell your daughter that this is an example of the Great British nation who is the only nation I know where even politicians get up in arms about a dance show on TV?

[Andrew Comrie]

Re "Why today's Strictly Come Dancing decision is a bad lesson for children" Great article, I couldn't agree more. Whinging on and on about rules and how the rules don't suit certain individuals is the same problem that's happening everywhere, especially in Football and this reflects on every kids football match all over the Country. People say it's only an entertainment program or it should be just about the dancing and that's fine but in the end John Sergent left because he was made to feel unwelcome, like being invited to party then find out everybody want you to leave early.

[Portia]

This is all fantastic. Thanks so much. I'm a single parent, work full time, have other family commitments and this is the first time I've signed on here and your level of commitment is amazing !!!! Do you have jobs ? Family ?

[Mags]

Sheesh - it's a little TV entertainment show - like hundreds of others that come and go. I think people get a bit too wrapped up in TV! Go and do something more interesting instead.....

[Connor]

What this teaches our children is that idiots who pay to vote on television shows are... well, idiots. On the up side, our children will benefit from the hindsight of their parents saying "that's futile, don't bother" - or am I dreaming?

[Christine Carter]

On Strictly last night he totally shunned his dance partner who was sat next to him in tears.
It's JS who has the ego. The sooner he goes on his cruise, the better.

[S]

Hol and Janeeok - I couldn't agree more, that's spot on. And Jax the Axe..."an absolute disgrace"? "hard-faced judges"? Calm down and get some perspective. The judges are mean to a lot of people, not just John. Yes, the dancers are pros - which means they've linked their profession and own careers and credibility to the show. To watch it being publicly mocked & debased is not what they will have contracted to do. JS is no media or election/voting novice. He has played an awesome game and some shrewd moves. It's a shame to see him go, but the cruise clearly beckons and maybe now Strictly Come DANCING can get back to being about just that.

[Arthur Van Der Lae]

Surely the BBC now owe all the viewers who voted a full refund of the costs incurred ?

[A non-viewer]

John's decision isn't difficult to understand. Not expecting to get this far, he had booked a cruise for next week. Now that he's in danger of still being involved instead of being on holiday, he has had to back out. So what?

[Ellen B]

BTW on the BBC website you'll find that Children in Need is not a beneficiary. It is not done for charity. Ok so no more talk about winners and losers.

[steve]

what is bad for children is being told that celebrity is good for its own sake, without having to be able to do anything to achieve it.

[Katherine Sweden]

Looks like the joke is on the viewers now that it has been revealed that Sergeant had a pre-booked work committment on a Carribean cruise next week.

He obviously had not expected to still be in the competition - he couldn't risk being kept in this week

[wintertilley]

JS was caught by taking the risk that he would be out of the competition by now, and therefore free to honour the cruise-ship contract that he had already signed - his withdrawal has nothing to do with anything else!

[Janeeok]

Come on - be realistic John has chosen to go - he wasn't pressurised or bullied. He is a journalist who reported on politics for over 20 years. He learnt a thing or two by observing our elected operatives in parliament! Get out while you're still on top.
He was a dire dancer but that didn't matter, his quips and self deprecating humour were perfect. That's why people warmed to him and they enjoyed ( perhaps sadistically) seeing him survive each week. The judges comments were all part of the show - and by and large quite fair and amusing. They were just doing their job and to me seemed to be doing it well.I'm sure they didn't upset John and they made for entertaining television. As to should he have gone or not? Who knows - but it's certainly raised the profile of the show. I personally believe that eventually he would have lost out to a better dancer. Perhaps it's surprising is that as a media savvy operator - he quit early and didn't choose to weather the storm come what may. Anyway as a piece of innocent, fun loving entertainment I am a committed strictly fan - I don't watch much television but this show with its verve,colour, dancing and showcasing of all the personalities is a delight. Come what may I'll be watching.. asan afterthought perhaps John could take over from Brucie as compere if
Mr Forsyth ever thinks of retiring. Then everyone would be happy!

[Tony]

I don't suppose its worth highlighting the fact that the majority of celebrities on the show are either rescuing a declining career or trying to break into a new media career. Methinks much of the protestation from certain quarters is about the losers dropping back into obscurity. With regard to the professional dancers, of course they're in it to win it. Winning will bring them signifcant financial rewards. I notice that those on the show who were most vocal about JS not being good enough to be there are now saying he shouldn't have left. Perhaps a rethink as to the objectives of the programme: entertainment for viewers or renewed/increased income streams for the participants.

Keep on rocking John !!

[Davie08]

Jeez people get a life. It is only a silly TV show.

[Hol]

It should be noted that dancing for a pop group is a world away from ballroom dancing, and the pop stars do not have as much of an advantage as every one thinks. Quite frankly, you do not need any dance skill to be able to manage pop routines - just ask Gary Barlow - but the latter requires a whole different technique and much better posture etc. Anybody can get away with pop group dances, as witnessed by the number of kids who can pick up their entire routines after a few viewings of a video. I used to do that myself, but I can't waltz to save my life! The most you can say is that the pop stars probably memorise choreography quicker, though that's little use unless you can perform it well.

What strikes me with this whole debacle is that the outcry a couple of weeks ago was about how terrible it is that public voting should save no hopers at the expense of more talented contestants, after Laura left X Factor. Now the public's done a speedy u turn and decided that the outrage is when that self same idea (the one they were all screaming about so recently) is even suggested because democracy rules. People need to make their minds up...

John, Rick Astley didn't win the 'Best Act Ever' award because he was the worst artist up for it: it was because of the Rickrolling fad, which has made him an online celebrity.

[Sarah Ebner]

Hi John,
Just to say that I have also become frustrated with the number of dancers they now have in the competition - last season's winner Alesha Dixon was another. It not only makes the contest "unfair", but creates such gaps between the different groups of contestants. There are those who learn to dance and really improve (Jodie Kidd, for example), but are always at a disadvantage because they are up against people who have been dancing in some way for years....

[John White]

What doesn't appear to have been understood by the vast majority is that this is nothing to do with "democracy" or "the public". It was the second example in a matter of weeks of the deliberate subversion of what a competition was intended to be about. The "prank" was concocted on the web with various "support John Sergeant" sites springing up in order to get him to win, purely because he was the worst dancer left and revelled in the fact.
The same thing happened recently when Rik Astley won "Best act ever" on the MTV awards, purely because some people had decided that he was a poor performer and that it would be fun to subvert the object of the awards, and this again grew into a "Cause celebre" on the web.

Peter Bazalgette referred to this subversion on Newsnight last night, but no one on the later discussion panel in this horrendously dumbed-down programme even noticed, least of all the sneering Jeremy Paxman.

Both Rik Astley and John Sergeant had enough about them to understand what they were being dragged into: Sergeant dropped out of the competition and Astley refused to collect his "award".
There is a misunderstanding that "Strictly Come Dancing" is either a dancing competition or entertainment. It is intended to be both. Without the element of fair competition it is nothing.
Having watched this series, what I had already found disquieting was the inclusion of the likes of Rachel Stevens and (as it has become clear) Cherie Lunghi, both of whom are trained dancers, Stevens even having been a prominent member of S Club 7, a singing and dancing group. This seems to me to be against the spirit of the competition. Who next? Darcey Bussell? However, again I appear to be in a minority of people who have even been aware of the inconsistency.
Sarah Ebner amongst others has failed to notice any of this. It is no wonder then that she will have difficulty explaining it to her six-year-old?

[Rob]

I think its a more damning indictment that the voting was aimed at keeping John in and thus submitting him to week after week of ritual humiliation. He was probably expecting to be voted out early on and the fact he was still in after all this time must have weighed heavy on his conscience. Last week, even his partner was surprised to be kept in.

My view of the man has gone UP after he made the decision to leave ON HIS TERMS. Thing is, you all want to believe he was forced out, cos that suits the way your selfish opinion wants it to be.

JS is not a man to be pressured and bullied, he's no ones soft touch and knows what he's doing and damn everyone else. Kudos to John for being brave.

[Phil Johnson]

Children In Need will be the real losers.Why not publish the actual votes caste to see who's presence was bringing the money in and how much less will now be raised for this worthy cause.

[eric]

I wish people could get this excited about stuff that actually mattered.

[Sol]

I wish I hadn't wasted those few minutes of my life reading this article.

[Suzeraine]

If it's supposed to be a serious dancing competition then why was Sergeant ever in it?

And if it's supposed to be a competition for non-dancers to learn to dance then why was Cherie Lunghi, a trained dancer we are told, ever in it?

Seems to me the most damaging message here is that only young and beautiful people should be allowed to dance, whereas Sergeant's message is far more valuable - that dance is a fantastic and fun way to keep fit and lose weight that absolutely anybody can do and enjoy.

[R brady]

John you made a terribly stuffy show,judged by pompous prats, into something watchable.
Shame on you silly judges.

[Mike Evans]

The kids get a good lesson in the limitations and dangers of democracy.

[Steven]

If the public wants to make a farce of the show by voting for Sargeant it's their right, but it achieves nothing but creating destruction for the other contestants . I don't think this in the spirit of the show and it's sad that people don't see the difference between a dance contest and their own need to destroy it.

[jacob]

I think its symptomatic of the BBC that they give into the judges and others and allow John Sergeant to leave without a whimper.

[Jon]

For pity's sake it was not bullying. Bullying is one person deliberately causing discomfort to another person to make themselves feel good and incredibly destructive. The judges were merely whinging due to their limited power.

[John Stitch]

So kids should be encouraged to value popularity over skill? Why then should thousands of teachers strive to teach millions of children to be able rather than merely liked? Sarge is voted for by a public that tries to ease its inferiority complex by championing someone more inferior. How can anyone see Sickly Scum Dancing as anything more than corrosive, patronising rubbish?

[Paul Watson]

P.S If the viewing/License paying Public can raise issue and cause the suspension of Johnathon Ross, over his questionable behaviour, then perhaps the viewing/License paying Public should similarly use the power of the people, to cause those pompus overpaid judges on 'Strickly' to be ousted too!

[sherry]

The US's version of Strictly Come Dancing, Dancing with the Stars had someone like Seargent...the comedienne Cloris Leachman. I was sad to see her go b/c she was funny and showed her personality on the dancefloor. She ended up being voting off later in the show but there were dancers unhappy she lasted so long b/c she wasn't the best dancers. I felt the judges were too harsh, esp. Len Goodman. If the people vote for who they like, that's it. Is the show really about becoming a professional dancer? It seems like the majority of the celebrities are doing the show for publicity where the seniors are doing for fun and for the experience. What is the message the judges are sending out? Is it only the young that can win?

[Paul Watson]

It's a sad inditement to the Show, and I feel sorry for John Sargent, who seems a realy nice bloke! The judges are completely to blame in my view for making the poor bloke feel pressure to withdraw. As for Arlene Phillips, well she's certainly two faced, as she previously critisized John for a lack of committment and effort, and then once he anounced he was going, I read that she commented on what entertainment he was on the show. Make your bloomin mind's up judges!!

[Chris Stevens]

If the show was about dancing then you should have real dancers, the show is about people we know and like learning to dance and working hard to improve.

Very sad that he has been bullied off like this.

[oldasiahand]

The judges and celebs are just bulying scum. I'm sorry John pulled out but will support Lord Mandelson when he runs even though I do not support Labour or any of his other causes.

[Barry]

I have more admiration for John Sergeant's decision to quit than I would have done for one to carry on. Having watched interviews and listened to what he has said, it's clear he was not bullied into leaving; if anything the public voting which kept him in the competition embarrassed him into the decision. He has admitted openly that he has almost no talent as a dancer; watching some of his performances in earlier shows one almost felt embarrassed for him, they were so bad. Like it or not, although the series is a showcase for celebrities to demonstrate to the public at large that they may just have a measure of talent in a field they and we never realised, it is still organised as a competition, and as such the most skilled should be the ones to advance; that the PC mafia don't like that aspect of it is immaterial.
It is much easier to keep a poor competitor in the competition through tactical voting than it is to remove him in the same fashion, and that is what a determined minority have done so far. It's not democracy - that's the exercise of the will of the majority; this is diktat of the will of an activist minority. I applaud John's decision to call their bluff.

[Hol]

Steve Rudd, I very much hope that what's happened on Strictly cannot be translated to politics in the way you claim - I would really hope that people put a hell of a lot more thought into voting for an MP than they do for a TV show.

[Cheryl from USA!]

I think that John Cleese should be on your next season so he can give 'em heck!!!

[Diana]

Actually, it is a good lesson for a child - fair voting systems can be subverted by soundbites and media coverage. Don't forget this lesson, all six year olds - in another 12 years you can apply it in the big bad world.

[Olu]

This is entertainment and JS entertained us, he was endearing and obviously working hard, if he was not trying he won't have lost so much weight.

Not everyone is gifted at dancing but why knock them down?

BBC - I want my money back, you bullies.

[Marc]

Come on John, change your mind. Maybe you're not the greatest dancer but you are a symbol of the public's desire to cock a snoot at self-important has-been judges. Get back in there and I feel pretty sure that you'll gain your biggest vote yet.

[Jo]

I think the expression 'sore losers' spring to mind.... Pathetic that people have to resort to name-calling because they got voted off 'before they were meant to'. Why shouldn't the underdog win for a change? I agree with this article - completely sending the wrong message to children. You're clearly not as popular Cherie - get over it - Yes you tried hard - but am sure it was harder for John to come out and perform every week not having your figure or pout. He uses humour rather than his legs - go figure! It's a Celebrity Show - not a Professional Competition. I agree with the above comment - if re-launching your career is why you have done this show, perhaps re-think why your career stalled in first place!

[trish]

Why ask the public to vote at all?

The judges, other competitors and lots of other 'mouths' placed John Sergeant in an impossible position with their bullying and backbiting.

Will the same happen in the next series if the judges feel that everything is not going their way?

Save your pennies members of the public. Your vote counts for nothing

[Steve Rudd]

I've never watched the programme, just followed the news controversy that surrounds it!

I could not agree more with the writer of the article, assuming the facts are as described.

And to the people who say it's "keeping a competitior with zero merit in, purely to get up the judges' noses" you could translate that to "keeping an independent MP in place, just to get up the political establishment's noses" - it's called DEMOCRACY!

The PEOPLE get to CHOOSE, and if those in charge don't like it, tough.

[Ben]

I think its absolutely right that John Sargent has gone, its neither funny nor clever to consistently vote for someone to win a competition on the basis that he annoys the judges - there's a sizable proportion of the population whom his presence annoyed just as much but we're split trying to vote to keep the rest of them in!

If he'd ended up in the final he would not have won, but it would have made half the final show as dull and cringeworthy as all his other attempts. I fail to see the 'joy' people are referring to - he never even appeared to be trying.

[Tony.j]

I feel so sorry for John Sergeant. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

This is a TV show, for heaven's sake! Its purpose (apart from the ungainly spectacle of dear John) is to raise money for charity.

Keep the 'professionals' out of this!

[Dave Morgan]

The rules of come dancing should be altered, so that the public can vote out the Judges!

.... particularly the judges who come across as arrogant, pompous, self-important little non-entities.

Oh, wait a minute. That's all of them, isn't it?

[Hol]

The judges' behaviour is a bad example? I don't think the public's behaviour - keeping a competitior with zero merit in purely to get up the judges' noses - is a particularly great lesson to be teaching children either!! The moral of the story is that if you're rubbish but people like to laugh at you being rubbish you should win a skill based competition? Not something I'll be telling mine...

Personally I think the public have had as much of a hand in humiliating John as the judges here. John was entertaining, but he should never have been kept in the competition so long and I think it very gracious of him to have stepped down.

[Jax the Axe]

An absolute disgrace.

The hard-faced judges and professional dancers should be ashamed of themselves for driving him out. Doubtless they'll deny it, but the show (for Children In Need, wasn't it ?) was sold to the public as "light entertainment".

I'm also sure that John Sergeant has better things to do with his life than be pilloried weekly by this self-appointed (and self-annointed ?) permatanned ballroom mafiosi.

If they really wanted a serious TV dance competition, then don't make reality fluff telly out of it, or put it to a public vote. Then they'll end up with "Come Dancing", a show which died at least twice in recent memory, trying desperately to promote the sport of choice of a tiny effete minority. In this regard, the judges and dancers should be eternally grateful to such sports as John Sergeant and Kate Garraway, who lend their disregarded pursuit some limelight it so desperately craves.

Perhaps now "Come Dancing" has a place on some minor digital channel on the outer fringes of the digibox, or possibly rebranded for Dave as the "Ola Jordan Show".

[Jan]

We shoul boycot all the so called selebs who have downed John.

[Mick]

The judges should be ashamed now. Next week the should be a forum to discuss the judges marks as they keep discussing the public votes. Shame on you!!! Next time make yourself conversant with the rule before you take the job. I think all the judges should step down and forfeit any money because they have brought the programme into disrepute.

[Graham]

Well, I for one won't be watching again. Why would I waste my time with such a bullying, self-obsessed, preening and supercillious excuse for a judging panel - they should be thoroughly ashamed.

[Joy Adams]

Bring him back - it will not be the same with out him - no more fun or entertainment from this gentleman just competitive nastiness from Stevens & Lunghi - hurry up Rachel and get voted out - not everyone is a fan of your over inflated ego!!!

[Whimsey]

Why on earth aren't there simply two prizes - one awarded by the judges and one by the 'populace'? Surely that would be the most sensible thing to happen.

It's no good the judges sulking because the populace doesn't approve of their professional views. Viewers judge on different criteria from professional dancers, and the two categories don't always overlap.

[Tracy St V]

With all the doom and gloom going on. It is a great delight to see Mr Sergeant bring so much joy. How sad are those that are unable to see that.

[Ian G]

The bullies here are the clowns who bully the rest of us into abandoning standards. Finally, we have won over the clowns who were laughing AT John Sergeant. The same clowns who like Ross and Brand and think it was only a joke.

[Michael]

Just to say how incredibly sad and disappointed I am at the decision by John to pull out.

Do the judges really understand what harm they have done to the show!!

If the rules are changed to prevent the judges being overruled then you can say goodbye to the show.

It is outrageous that John Sergeant has felt compelled to pull out of the show. The judges and celebrities, such as Cherie Lunghi,have effectively 'bullied' him into this decision. They seem to have completely missed the point of the show which is to raise money for charity,through the public vote, and to provide entertainment in the form of a dance competition. The competition is however not soley a dance competition;if it were then the competitors should ALL be professional dancers.Too many of the celebrities involved have seriously fragile egoes. If their career prospects actually hinge on whether they win this show perhaps they should reconsider their career!