The recent withdrawal of John Sargeant from Strictly Come Dancing has raised one or two interesting issues.
Its basically become one of those moments that you get where a vote is taken and those with the experience and authority find themselves at odds with public opinion, and , rightly or wrongly, the former regard this as unfair.
Now if you are one of those who regard a particular vote result as unfair and wrong, then you have a choice in how you react. You can take a dose of humility and accept the result, which many do, or you can decide that because you know better you can try and affect the outcome so that your view overrides that of the voters.
Now the Judges of Strictly Come Dancing may well feel angry and frustrated for good reason. Here is someone who is not playing by the rules, who is not dancing in the way he should be trained, and yet he gets voted in time and again. They must be wondering whether the public are thick, or ignorant, and therefore perhaps because they clearly don't have the expertise they have, then their views aren't so important and therefore the rules of selection will have to be amended. Basically they seem to think that the voters have made a mockery of their qualified position as Judges
It is easy, when one is in power or has a vested interest, to mock majority opinion if it disagrees with your viewpoint, especially if you have the expertise, knowledge and experience. However this is where humility comes into play. People vote in a particular way for all sorts of reasons and perhaps the Judges of Strictly Come Dancing, before making their harsh judgments, should have stopped to think long and hard as to why the public kept voting in John Sargeant and how they view the concept of Strictly Come Dancing as a programme. I know that the BBC's charter is to educate and inform, and so it should and must. But it is also there to entertain and this is harmless entertainment that offends very few people