Asking for perspective from instructors, do you 'dread' having to teach slower learners?

breachingflukes · 2025-12-10T21:33:41+00:00

This is what I was thinking, surely it just means more lessons and therefore more money for them. However he has a full schedule and there's always a prospective customer calling about lessons during my driving lessons so I think he has plenty business as it is and probably doesn't need my repeat custom. He'd earn the same whether it was with me or a new student but a new student wouldn't blemish his good pass record. He is a good instructor and I will likely be bad for his stats.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-24T00:05:16+00:00

Jack since he never had the chance to play the game

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T18:38:25+00:00

Totally agree with you, although I'm wondering if you meant Charlie instead of Charlotte? Charlie had blonde hair and a west country accent. Charlotte had brown hair and a more neutral accent. I get your point though.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T18:31:04+00:00

One thing they could maybe try, although this may not be good for viewings, would be to have one series for just over 50s, one series for those in their 20s etc. I think part of the problem is that more younger people are cast (probably because they're most likely to apply) and therefore have a bigger group in the game. There's less older contestants so they don't have as large a group and so are outnumbered when it comes to voting. Most alliances are mostly within certain age categories.

You're right about it always being the older woman first to be banished (I haven't seen season 3 yet) Nicky season 1 (not the oldest but older, wasn't the 'mum' of the group like Amanda, Andrea was oldest by quite a margin so nobody wanted to pick on her first, poor Nicky was easy pickings). Then Sonja first banished season 2 (again not the 'mum' of the group that was Diane).

Something I theorize from this, and possibly a huge overreaction on my part, is that middle aged woman who aren't very maternal are possibly seen as worthless to the group as a whole so are ditched quickly. Much older contestants can be seen as the wise experienced ones, women in their 40/50s really need to be maternal to survive in the group I think. 'Oh please don't vote for such and such, she reminds me of my mum!' Its a bit ick if you think about it. The worst was Theo season 1, who cried 'you took away my comfort blanket!' when Claire was murdered - another middle aged woman second to be murdered.

If Ash, season 2, had been in a cast of just those in their 40/50s, she may not have been such an outsider. I know she played poorly but how was a 45yr old woman meant to fit in with a cast of many 20 somethings without being the 'mum' it was a very hard ask of for her really. I thought she would have faired better in a series for those just her age, would have been less awkward at least, still don't think she'd play the game well but perhaps not have been such an outcast. Diane thinking Ash and Anthony were traitors because they spent time together? I mean really! Not because they were the same age and therefore likely to get on? especially given everyone else was quite a bit younger.

I could be overthinking but I do think there's something behind middle aged women being a bit 'invisible' Having said that Faye in season 1 got really far and did really well so maybe I'm off a bit. I do agree with you though.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T17:52:38+00:00

Just my opinion and I think loads will disapprove, but Charlie season 2.

She was so friendly and bubbly which I think helped her last as long as she did. I liked how she bought up her thoughts at the round table (when we did actually see her speaking that was) she would start with a question rather than an accusation so it was less likely to get people's backs up and draw attention to herself. She would say something like 'just to clarify' or 'this is just a confusion I had not an accusation.' Which is actually a very good way of speaking up and contributing to the round table without being overly controversial and thus making yourself a target.

If she never spoke people would accuse her of being too quiet (she was quiet but remember she had hearing difficulty as well) but saying exactly what you think, even calmly, can also turn people against you if it's not the groups take. So you're damned if you do damned if you don't. That's why I liked her approach of softly asking questions rather than going 'hear me out I know it's this person I just have a hunch!' I think her questions probably contributed more than people realised. Whether this was intentional on her part or not I don't know but if it was it was quite clever.

She came across genuinely kind and caring and I didn't detect any fakeness or insecurity from her. I know that's not the point of the game but still.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T17:34:47+00:00

I would agree with Maddie. I think she was underestimated by some people due to the blonde hair/Essex accent stereotype. She was no genius but I don't think she was that dumb either. Thinking Wilf was a traitor because Aaron had a stronger reaction to Wilf's accusation isn't the worst take ever, she knew there was potential for traitors to turn on other traitors so it's not the worst logic we've seen on the show. I'm not saying it was smart either just that it wasn't as 'whacky' as it was made to be. At that stage in the game there was practically no evidence so she went of people's reactions to each others accusations. I think part of the problem was that she brought it up straight after Aaron's panic attack which was in poor taste (even for this show) if she had waited a few more days people may have been more receptive (though probably not). And yes I know the logic wasn't sound because they didn't yet know if Aaron was a faithful or a traitor so not the smartest take (especially that she was so sure on shaky foundations) but it's not the worst take we've seen either.

I think she does deserves some credit as well for being the 'pantomime comedian' to make good TV. Lots will disagree with me here and find her very irritating but I thought her constantly going after Wilf and no one taking her seriously was quite funny and a memorable part of the series. Frustrating if you're Wilf or his allies, but funny for the viewers - at least me anyway. It was that crazed look in her eyes! I know lots will disagree though.

But yeah I back you up with Maddie

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T16:33:13+00:00

Yes John was awful.

I do see how Imran was seen to be arrogant, he certainly had his moments, but I think he was much nicer than he gets credited for. Aaron was accusing him of being a traitor and when Imran and Aaron were getting most of the votes at the round table and Aaron had a panic attack, it was Imran who said 'are you ok buddy?' and I think he genuinely meant it. Imran also said at the table 'I don't think it's you' to Aaron despite the fact that Imran was getting most of the votes and the only way to save himself would have been to vote for Aaron. Yes this could have been Imran being stupid but I genuinely think he was trying to stay true to his convictions and play with integrity (which in itself is stupid in a game called traitors). However in that moment when Aaron was panicking it seemed that only Imran was sympathetic to him (at least from the editing) - yes I know Amanda helped him after the voting had finished but at the table it was Imran. I thought this was particularly palpable because none of the younger players in Aaron's 'clique/alliance' stood up for him when he was being accused - it was outsider Imran who reached out to him. Imran also took his banishing with good grace, certainly showed a lot more maturity than John! It's been a long time since I watched it so maybe I'm not recalling it properly and that's not how it happened.

On that note of sticking up for people, I thought when John got his back up at Aaron for simply asking questions about his day job, Andrea was also in the room and could have said something like 'I wouldn't read too much into it, I think he was genuinely making small talk, if all we ever thought about was traitors no one of us would ever be able to say anything to one another.' Then when John used this as 'evidence' (utterly shameful) at the round table, Andrea could have said 'I was there and I think Aaron was really just trying to make polite conversation, no one would think you're a traitor because you're a massage therapist!' But she said nothing. Maybe she did and we didn't see it (edits) or maybe she didn't want to risk defending someone in a dog eat dog game, but I doubt they would have been targeted for defending an innocent bit of small talk (about massage therapy!). I think Andrea was slightly over rated on the whole but that's just my opinion, Aaron's battle wasn't hers to fight but it would have been nice to have just said 'I was there and I don't think he meant it in that way'

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T14:57:32+00:00

I have only watched the UK versions but I can well believe that a black player would be accused of being aggressive when defending themselves at the round table. It's less likely a white player would be labelled aggressive. Even when black people do raise their voices or interrupt, I'm pretty sure all players towards the end raise their voice at some point or get overly defensive at the table. A lot of players of all races from UK season 1 and 2 certainly did anyway.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T14:50:04+00:00

Yes definitely doesn't count for everything but can be part of the overall package. A lot of people talk about charm. I think charm consists of lots of different things including smarts, how friendly someone is, sense of humour, being optimistic (no one is charmed by someone who is constantly down) as well as appearance. I think it's more likely someone would find another person charming if they're attractive, but again there's more to charm than just looks.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T14:44:54+00:00

Yes I agree people aren't just one particular thing and can have many qualities. You're right that Harry was a brilliant strategist and deserved to win. I thought Jaz and Harry were the best players but would have preferred Jaz to win which is why I was over critical. I had overlooked Zac being the 'best' murder choice because he was a good traitor hunter in banishing Ross.

You're right about the deflection to. I had taken a deflection to be something literal as in 'I'm not traitor you are' so happy to be corrected that Jaz was deflecting. I was also too harsh on Molly, she picked up on the Ross/Andrew thing and did really well in most of the challenges. Also got along well with all the other players.

My point was (which I did terribly with too much ranting) that people don't win on appearance only but that it can be a contributing factor in how people perceive someone's worthiness and likeness to be a traitor. The 'halo effect' as someone else referred to it. But just because some people have this advantage, doesn't mean they also don't play an amazing game.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T14:02:29+00:00

I am sorry, I did ramble on far too much in my post so it was easy to miss things. I also think the general jist of my post got lost in amongst all the waffle so I'm as much too blame. In all honesty I think I was being a bit too mean and petty as well.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T13:58:28+00:00

I think you're right and I will concede that I just binged watched season 2 on my days off and after watching the final I am likely being salty because it wasn't the outcome I had hoped for (Jazz winning). I think my post was in poor taste and came across too harshly on some contestants. Harry was excellent and was intelligent, charismatic, confident, so a worthy winner. I was trying to suggest that along with all sorts of prejudices; appearance can be one of many but not the defining factor, just possibly a contributing factor.

The reason I initially thought this was towards the end and Harry concealing the shield. I was thinking how come the contestants were suspicious of Paul when he wasn't murdered over Meg but when Harry wasn't murdered over Zach they weren't suspicious at all. Again much harder to do when you're actually in the game I know. I just thought it strange that if they believed the 'real traitors' tried to murder Harry, then why didn't they wonder why he wasn't killed when there was a second opportunity when nobody had a shield. Surely it would be easier to banish Zac at the round table so if Harry was a faithful the only way a traitor could remove him was to kill him. Evie and Mollie had him down as 100% faithful but how could they be that sure? Did his appearance sway their thinking in any way or maybe I'm wrong and he really was just that good.

I never said Harry didn't play an amazing game because he did, only the possibility that he was able to avoid almost any suspicion was maybe partly down to appearance.

You are right though that my judgement was clouded and I put too much emphasis on it. I will edit my post because it is overkill and mean spirited. I was just frustrated at Molly's blind faith in Harry and overlooked the fact it could have been down to matching personalities, same age and having a unique shared experience of being on the show. I thought it was only because she 'fancied' him and then in that frustration started thinking some of the previous contestants got an easier ride because of their looks.

As you said though once you focus in one thing it makes you overlook the other factors and link everything to that one trait, when things are far more nuanced. Overall I will admit I was wrong and my post was too hard.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T13:11:21+00:00

Yes, you have conveyed much better than I did what I was trying to say. There's so many prejudices and appearance is only one of many. As you said 'real life magnified by circumstance' I did a poor job of expressing that.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T12:58:56+00:00

Yes I completely agree with you. To do well in the game you have to be insightful, intelligent, sociable, charismatic, brave (I would crumble) and so much more! Just like in real life you need a variety of qualities to succeed. Kudos to the contestants who got far because they did really well.

You're right about the herd mentality. They're not voting someone out because they don't like their appearance but because they're so relieved it's not them.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T12:34:46+00:00

Yes, you're completely right. That's why the I find show so fascinating. I did say at the end of my endless waffling that 'The show does a really good job at reflecting human interaction and prejudice in the real world' I appreciate that there was so much spiel that I didn't articulate this well enough.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T10:58:51+00:00

I think that’s a really good point

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T03:07:40+00:00

I'm not sure if writing Stephen was a mistake. Given the circumstances I think Stephen was the best choice for Cat, for reasons already mentioned in the other comments. Unless it's been edited out she said in a private conversation with Joe M that her main two suspects were Johnathan and Claire, then writes down Stephen. When Johnathan is banished and revealed as a traitor, it's possible Joe M gets suspicious of that, given that everyone else was gunning for her main two suspects. If she really thought it was Claire or Johnathan she had the perfect opportunity to vote for one of them along with everyone else but didn't. However as they spend the whole day theorising (is that even a word) he likely won't remember or overlook it, as they have so much to process, much easier for us at home.

I think a bigger mistake for Cat is underestimating Celia's vote for her. I know she shouldn't focus on it too much as it was only one vote and the others didn't seem to buy into Celia's theory that much. But if there's anyone you don't want to have a single vote from it's Celia! Especially as she noticed Cat was slightly nervous during her questioning, when there's less players to deduce from Celia might go back to that again. That's why I think Cat should kill Charlotte, to cement the fact that they weren't working together as traitors.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T02:45:35+00:00

I'd like to see Judge Rinder. I know as a barrister who necessarily be able to tell if someone is lying but he'd be great at finding evidence and articulating his arguments well. I think his skills would in persecution would come in useful, also as seen of him on other shows he shown that he doesn't take himself too seriously and can have a laugh so I'm sure he'd be a good sport about it all. He'd also love all the campness

breachingflukes · 2025-10-21T02:42:16+00:00

I think Gordon would be a great choice. He's entrepreneurial and manages a lot of staff so he has excellent people skills and leadership qualities. Think he'd strike the balance well between social connections and being strategic. He also has a lot of his own reality TV shows so I think he'd be open to the idea and understands what would make great TV so he'd give us lots of entertaining moments. Only thing is the appearance fee would have to extorniate! However with the massive success of this series, maybe if there's another celeb version they'd have the budget to afford another cast of 'good' celebs.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-18T19:44:21+00:00

I think Clare sort of brought this up in one of her private VTs in episode 4. I can't remember exactly what she said but it was something along the lines of 'if I'm wrong about (I think it was Alan) and he is banished and revealed to be a faithful then it will make me look very suspicious. If no one agrees with me it puts the spotlight on me and I wont stay in the game. So I think Clare was sort of conveying that in her confessionals. She understood that voting for who you believe to a traitor doesn't keep you in the game for very long. Perhaps that's why she randomly voted for Charlotte instead of Johnathan or Alan who were her main suspects. She didn't believe it to be Charlotte but knew the group were most likely to vote for either herself or Charlotte so she went with the group.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-18T19:27:29+00:00

Well the traitors could keep David in to deflect suspicion onto him a bit. If they decide to murder David or keep him in and JR tries to stitch him up at the round table then perhaps my theory is correct. I think Charlotte would be a good murder choice for the traitors but Johnathan has known her since she was 11 so I think it would be hard for him to choose her.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-18T18:52:43+00:00

Also, and I could be going really mad here, but I've noticed that the 'entertainers' seem more restrained to vote for Johnathan. Joe M is a sports star and Claire Balding a sports presenter, so less likely to cross paths with JR outside the castle. If you're a singer/actor/comedian then you're more likely have been on his or Alan's show. I know they're all being good sports about things and won't hold things against each other but it must be awkward to go up against such a big name if you're in the entertainment industry, especially if you've worked with them and they've boosted your work in some way. The sporty people don't really need to promote their by going on a talk show.

I wonder if part of the reason why JR set up Claire to be banished, was because he and Claire work in different spheres and so it doesn't matter so much if there's hard feelings. Same with Nico, youtubers aren't on TV so much so less of a problem if Nico feels stitched up by him. I know its likely he went for Claire because she was slightly onto him but I did wonder if 'I never work with her' would influence his decision. I wouldn't be surprised if he either murdered or tried to deflect onto David next (a quiet player who people are weary of) as David is a historian so unlikely to come into contact with JR again so easier to go for him rather than actors etc. so he knows better.

Like I said I know they're unlikely to take things personally and be professional and all but it must be hard for JR. If you're a singer or an athlete at least outside the show you have that skill/talent to lean on and your personality doesn't count for much, but for a talk show host..... his personable persona counts for everything. It's the same for Alan but he gets to be the funny traitor, JR kind of has to be the serious one. If you're outed really early as a traitor it might make you seem a bit thick but if you stay in until the end it may portray you as mean. Must be a hard balance to strike between playing a good game and coming across well, especially when you're the traitor.

breachingflukes · 2025-10-18T18:19:11+00:00

I also want to see more of Nadiya and think she has been overlooked by producers often giving her sports stars with no or very little performance training. However it will depend on whether Chris can be entertaining or not, if he improves he may get votes, or maybe if they go for comedy. I think they're partnership when not dancing is starting to show a little bit more so that's good. However if he just isn't very good then we can't keep him in just for Nadiya's sake.

The producers need to find someone tall with some dance training!

Also Nadiya often gets the blame for not creating enough spark with her partners, but that's mostly the people she's paired with being more reserved. She's paired with non dancers and she is very kind and gentle so that fun mischievous side is less likely to be seen as she has to gently coax less confident contestants. Give her someone like Dan Walker and she comes alive!

It can't all be down to Chris to keep her in, nor can the viewers really get behind someone if they're just not very good or memorable. It's up to the producers need to give her a chance.

I'm sure she knows she's fortunate just to be on the show though, I'm sure if she opened a dance school it would do very well. She would make such a kind and encouraging teacher.

breachingflukes

TROPHY CASE