Tom Skinner breaks silence over Strictly exit, claims voting figures were rigged and seeks legal help

Tom Skinner has broken his silence about his early exit from Strictly Come Dancing, saying he is seeking legal advice after alleging that BBC bosses rigged the official voting figures.

The Apprentice star, 34, was the first celebrity to be voted off Strictly in October, a departure that stirred controversy given his outspoken right-wing views and the late-season drama surrounding the show. In a lengthy post on X, Skinner explained that he would not attend the final, stressing that he had spoken with his dance partner Amy Dowden to ensure she was okay with his decision. He said his aim was to push himself out of his comfort zone, even if dancing was not his strength, and emphasized his respect for Dowden as a friend and professional.

Skinner described what he said was an anonymous email he received about the night of his exit. He claimed the message, which he said was from a BBC executive and contained voting statistics, suggested he had received far more votes than appeared publicly and that the figures were mishandled. He said the email had been independently verified and that it also claimed the BBC was angry and nervous because he had met American political figure JD Vance. Skinner insisted he is not a political person, but he acknowledged the media narrative surrounding him and argued that he would have welcomed a fair outcome based on the votes.

He said he had asked to see the official voting figures to back up the numbers cited in the email but was told they could not be shown, a claim he said had never been verified or disclosed to him during the show’s run. Skinner noted that he had discussed the matter with senior people and the BBC welfare team, which he said advised him to seek legal counsel because of how unfair the situation felt. He also mentioned smaller incidents that contributed to his sense of oddness around the exit, such as a welcome gift he described as having been “stolen.”

Skinner asserted that after a private Zoom call with BBC executives to discuss moving forward, the story became national news within a day, which he attributed to a leak rather than his own actions. He stressed that the timing felt coincidental and said he did not want the matter to become a public dispute. He also stressed that his goal was simply to set the record straight and emphasize that his decision not to attend was about fairness and respect for the other contestants who had worked hard.

In response to Skinner’s claims, a BBC spokesperson said: “Strictly Come Dancing’s public vote is robust and independently overseen and verified to ensure complete accuracy.” The statement added that any contrary claims were unfounded and that the BBC could not comment on Skinner’s specific email because he had not shared it with the corporation.

PromoVeritas, the independent verifier of Strictly’s public vote, stated that all votes are independently and comprehensively verified and that all votes received are validated. The company noted that verification has been standard practice for every week of the competition.

Industry observers and sources familiar with the production indicated that Skinner has since pursued or considered legal action against the BBC, though representatives for the network maintained that the voting process is sound and that the corporation would defend any claims of manipulation. The episode has kept Strictly in the headlines as audiences weigh the integrity of the show’s voting system against Skinner’s assertions.

As the season’s coverage continues, Skinner has asked for fairness and transparency surrounding the show’s voting process. He has remained clear that his intentions are not to undermine the efforts of his fellow dancers or to gain attention, but to ensure that the official results reflect the public’s voice. Whether the legal route will yield new information or reach a settlement remains to be seen, but the dispute has cast a fresh light on the mechanics of reality-competition voting and the scrutiny it attracts when outcomes displease a contestant.