Glitterball BINGO...THE SCD WINNER!!!!!

[TheSassyAssassin]

Too drunk for this

Yes I know he does group dances or maybe helps out off and on or stands in during illness

But the whole celeb partner pressure thing I mean

Neil said in an interview that he would love to have a partner, but knew it wouldn't happen this year because there were no departures from the male professionals.

This was the year that everyone fell in love with Kevin all over again so it was sad to see him yesterday :(

Bonfire I so agree with you. Kevin has had an amazing strictly this year even though he didn't make the final. I hope they work it out.

@stitchglitched Oke doke - sorry - I stand corrected

Hope Neil does get a partner then

Looks like Gemma and Gorka are a couple after all. Good luck to them.

Can anyone explain to me why the professionals seem to have so many different outfits?? They were on the gallery last night in a silver and pink outfit but didn't see them dancing in them.
I keep seeing this and wondering why

Oh ignore me it was the final group number
But still definitely have seen it on other years

Manic, has it been confirmed?

Gemma and Simon was because she's been texting him, apparently.

Gorka has been reportedly to be seeing someone else along with Gemma.

Well they were having breakfast together this morning and they were joking about the rumours about them. It was a Snapchat video.

Hmm, maybe or maybe not but you can bet the papers will have picked up on it and will spin a new story about them again. I used to like Gorka but ad the series went on, I started liking him less because of his scowling.

Finally got around to watching the final tonight and I must admit, I really enjoyed it which surprised me a bit as I've kind of dipped in and out of Strictly the past couple of series, and it has gone from being essential viewing to occasional viewing.

Regarding the final - I wasn't fussed who won, so watched with a very open mind, in that I took each dance as it came and was completely unbiased and without prejudice about any of them.

As it turned out, the most enjoyable and 'emotional' (dislike that word but can't think of anything better) dances came from Debbie and Gemma. They just connected with me in a way that Joe and Alexandra's didn't. Not sure why as I can see that Alexandra is a fantastic dancer and performer, and Joe oozes personality and is also a very competent dancer, but I felt myself tuning out with both of them, and have no idea why.

In contrast, Gemma to me was immensely likeable and watchable and I was fixated on her dances from start to finish, even though I could see she's not as technically good as the others. With Debbie again I found myself properly watching from start to finish ... and while it's obvious to see she is technically excellent (if a little too precise and correct) there is also a fragility and vulnerability about her. Very hard to explain but in simple terms, Gemma and Debbie were the ones I enjoyed watching the most, for different reasons.

If I had voted, I would have voted for one, or both of them, but I can also see why others would have considered Joe or Alexandra deserving winners.

I thought Strictly had lost it's sparkle for me - but watching the final tonight on iplayer I really enjoyed it and thought the whole thing was very well done.

Okay, well the David Paisley story is now in the public domain thanks to Andy Hall's 'exclusive' in Dan Wootton's column. It's a denial posing as a story but Paisley's follow up tweet has not been deleted. I won't go into details as it could be libellous but nonetheless it brings up various issues - the timing of the tweet is poor, the honour code (similar to not doxxing) has not been followed but the side of me who has posted regularly on harassment threads feels it is the alleged behaviour which is the public interest issue rather than the reason behind it. How far do you go to protect your privacy? I feel very sorry for both parties - one whose potential fears seem to have not been wrong and the other whose claims if made of late by a woman on twitter might have been taken more seriously.
Feel free to report this post as you see fit but keep any discussion nameless for legal reasons.

Just done a bit of googling - good grief! A shocking story about one I can’t remember seeing not smiling. If true, it puts a very different light on this person and one I would never have expected.

You are right: if one of those people were female, this story would have been picked up and run with in a big way.

With regard to the timing of the tweet, I wonder if it becomes very hard to see someone lauded and feted when you feel you have a very different perception of them. It would make me very angry.

Very interesting about Joe and Craig if it's true it explains why J got such high marks from him,but doesn't explain why the public voted for him (I would like to know by how many votes )

Also Aston was better than Joe IMO.

I've just read the article- that's definitely not what would have been written had a woman been involved. It really minimises the seriousness of the allegations.

the dirt is being flung
no one is safe

what is in it for the tweeter?

I’ve just see the tweets made by David Paisley and am really shocked if they are true.
Also agree that if it was a female, it would be treated differently.

The initial tweet, subsequently deleted, was angry. The complainant has done some activist work in the past. The press have not run with the story because the person in question has a right to a private life and therefore it is difficult to print without breaching this. It is seen as a low thing to do, I wonder whether that is why Dan Wootton didn't attach his name to the article. I am guilty of having speculated on here but it is absolutely none of my beeswax. It would also have zero effect on who I chose to support. All that said, the complainant has not tried to sell their story afaik and has no reason to lie about their experiences. The person they are alleging intimidation from has never courted the press and should be protected, especially from false narratives, but should the complainant be suppressed or criticised if their recollection is what they perceived to have experienced and not a smear campaign/political tool. If we don't believe then we victim blame. At the same time, trial by social media does not mean justice.

trial by social media does not equal justice
trial by red top rag does also not equal justice

As in, the part of the story which is not in the public interest, would neither affect my vote nor my support. It puts a new spin on the tango but I couldn't care less. The alleged conduct after the fact is a different matter entirely. The two things are separate. The complainant has advocated for both his community and for women on his twitter feed but that does not mean everyone should be expected to represent.

Indeed slarty so I will now go and do something more productive than argue what is public interest journalism and what is voyeurism. I think celebrity is an awful burden and fame shouldn't mean you are public property. I don't do social media. I was affected by the #metoo movement though and can see how being heard is important and strength in number.