Amanda and Giovanni

[CombatLingerie]

Apologies if there is already a thread but I couldn’t find one. What on earth has gone on between Amanda Abbington and Giovanni Pernice during Strictly?AA is apparently taking legal action against the BBC claiming she has PTSD.

I don't understand why anyone would defend him

because he's had all sorts of accusations thrown at him.

Show a bit of concern for AA, on the assumption that something has happened on SCD, and hope that the truth comes out and justice is done, whether or not that includes GP or not.

Why should people show concern for Amanda but not defend Giovanni against the accusations?

I mean, I am concerned for her - with everything that has happened in her life over the last few years I can well imagine that she is actually quite fragile.

Yeah. Makes me wonder what they'd be like on a jury!!

I’m no expert on PTSD but aside from any excessively abusive behaviour, if some hard training methods, strong criticism (which all the contestants experience) or something seemingly innocuous like a song or dance theme has triggered it, how can the BBC/Giovanni be responsible for that?

If Annabelle complained that a song she was given triggered PTSD about her husband’s death, would we be calling for Johannes’ head and saying she should sue the BBC? I’d probably suggest she wasn’t in the right place mentally to be taking part and should’ve focused on tackling that instead of going on a dance show.

"The rumour... should we repeat rumours? Perhaps not... but then again if that is a widespread rumour in the industry then I believe it is fair to gossip on here that that is the UNVERIFIED, UNPROVEN, QUITE POSSIBLY UNTRUE AND MALICIOUS, but possible true RUMOUR, so long as we're clear it's a rumour."

Just bear in mind that in English law if you say "there are rumours that X beats his dog" and X sues for libel, it is not a defence to say "I spoke the truth! there are such rumours".

If you repeat defamatory statements you can't hide behind "allegedly"

Because it is a principle of justice that we (to a large extent) trust the victim / accuser until a full legal or other investigatory process shows us the full truth (obviously trusting the victim / accuser does not mean we pre-convict the accused).

Because when people say they are suffering we show sympathy irrespective of the cause?

If a particular song triggers someone's PTSD then they should let the production team know. If the production team still play it then they are to blame.

If music triggers someone's PTSD then they shouldn't go on the show.

Hard training methods and strong criticism are more nuanced. Both are somewhat inevitable in a high pressure environment like this. But equally there is a point that those two things can go from reasonable behaviour to bullying to serious bullying and harassment and maybe even assault (trying to force your dance partner into the right position when talking has failed) or sexual assault (getting really handsy to encourage compliance). If this is anything to do with AA's complaint then it will be investigated and the evidence should come out as to whether anyone's behaviour crossed a line, and if so how far passed the line they went.

I'd like to know more about this. On the one hand I completely believe that you can't go around saying "there are rumours that X beats his dog" with no possibility of consequence. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that there is no way of discussing the fact that other people are spreading a rumour, and what that rumour is, without risking being sued for libel.

I think we’re saying the same thing?

PTSD triggered by abusive or extreme behaviour and not following duty of care? The BBC/GP should be held responsible. A claim of PTSD being triggered by standard training practices or innocuous situations which weren’t communicated to production? AA would need to take responsibility for putting herself in this environment with an obviously fragile mental state.

Well the New Statesman was nearly destroyed by publishing a story saying "Westminster is alight with scurrilous and untrue rumours about and affair between XX and YY" when both XX and YY sued.

I believe you. I would love to know more, because surely there must be some room to discuss the FACT that a rumour is spreading like wildfire, and what that rumour is... but equally any discussion of a completely unproven and damaging rumour is spreading it which isn't right.

Is it possible that the New Statesman made a mistake? Perhaps they wrote a story which was clearly about spreading the rumour, whilst pathetically trying to cover their backs with a flimsy "other people are saying it" excuse?

Perhaps had the story been more about the fact that harm was being done to xx and yy because a completely unproven, scurrilous rumour about them having an affair was being widely spread in the corridors of power then they could not have been successfully sued? Indeed maybe xx and yy would have owed the New Statement a thank you for publicising the fact that there was not a shred of evidence to back up the rumour that they were having an affair that the reader might have heard on the grapevine?

I find the law fascinating.

As I’ve said before, shite sticks.

It has finished my career progression.

If there was anyone who could say there was more than an ounce of truth to those rumours above I would say have at it.

But to fling allegations of that nature about under an umbrella of ‘I heard’ or ‘it is rumoured’ is a bloody rotten thing to do.

They grow arms and legs and then you get the ‘no smoke without fire’ and folk start relating it as gospel. It follows you which is bad enough. And if you are in the public eye, I imagine it will hang about you like skin.

It is hugely unfair if there is no truth to it at all.

He wasn’t named. No one knows what has gone on. No one knows who is involved - apart from AA.

Speculation I understand but rumours like that (unless there is evidence of that behaviour)? I don’t think most people understand how incredibly damaging it can be - in all respects.

It is pure shameful to do that with only hearsay to hang it on.

Perhaps had the story been more about the fact that harm was being done to xx and yy because a completely unproven, scurrilous rumour about them having an affair was being widely spread in the corridors of power then they could not have been successfully sued?

@AnonnyMouseDave but if the NS had said that, then they would know that the rumours were true and causing harm, it's totally different! Saying rumours are spreading suggests the NS thinks those rumours are true. If the NS didn't think they were or knew they weren't, then they shouldn't have said anything.

Sorry big typo in my post above - first 'true' should be 'untrue'.

Anyway your example is a completely opposite story Anonny

obviously trusting the victim / accuser does not mean we pre-convict the accused

So why is it not OK to decent Giovanni against rumours? Your reply makes no sense. I mean, he's a "victim" of possibly untrue accusations on threads like this. Nothing has actually been said by Amanda/her legal team yet Giovanni is apparently a "vile abuser".

i thought "innocent until proven guilty" was the main premise of the justice system' not "trust the accuser/victim"

Your reply makes no sense. I mean, he's a "victim" of possibly untrue accusations on threads like this. Nothing has actually been said by Amanda/her legal team yet Giovanni is apparently a "vile abuser

YES and no actual direct accusations via Amanda so it seems. All very covert. He's a sitting duck just waiting to see what comes next - can't fight back or flee. Probably carrying high anxiety himself A cruel and tormenting process If you ask me.

Bang on! Thank you!

If the New statesman got sued than it was definitely a huge mistake on their part. The. Media employ loads of lawyers to stop them being sued

Media also generally accept there is a risk that they will be sued at some point (and often win)

It’s a terrifying thought. I never seem to see any evolving opinions either. Never a ‘I hadn’t thought if that.’

Haven't read the whole thread. I find it a shame purely because Gio is the one I look forward to watching the most when the series starts - but I suppose Amanda did the right thing requesting cameras in rehearsals if she was unsure about conduct. I can imagine that put a strain on their training too.

I personally don't know why anyone famous or not, would put themselves through Strictly!

I thought there already were cameras in the training rooms as how else would they have footage to show on It Takes Two?

Although I would love to learn to dance no way could I do Strictly. Too much like hard work to be honest plus I would not be able to dance that close and intimately. Many many celebs that having taken part though say it is the best thing they have ever done. I think there are far more celebs with a positive view of it than negative

@mydogisthebest from what I understand during rehearsals, Strictly just send a cameraman and sound man for an hour or so a couple of times a week to film them rehearsing and talking. I expect she probably asked for full time surveillance cameras to be installed in the room!

Agree it seems like most celebs get a lot out of it. Krishnan Guru-Murphy seemed to have a new lease of life, even though you could tell he knew he wouldn't be a finalist.

I’m 100% not referring to this specific situation here but Strictly is a tricky one to manage I would imagine as by its nature involves pretty intimate touching during dancing and expected during other times on camera too - waiting or results, interviews etc. Pretty close to what often has an intimacy coordinator in films. Obviously they’re not (usually!) simulating sex or nearly naked - but very intimate nonetheless and presumably without the related safeguards and witnesses etc.

That's why it's such a great show. It's genuinely entertaining and some celebrities get a lot out of it. I thought Rose Ayling Ellis was amazing, she obviously had a great partnership with Gio. Krishnan Guru Murthy, Dan Walker, Ed Balls, Bill Bailey, Ellie Simmons, Katie Piper - so enjoyable to watch, starting off at different points and with all sorts of challenges..

Have I missed something? Did Amanda request cameras in rehearsals or are you speculating based on her asking for the footage?

My assumption had been that she simply asked for the footage the BBC had, with no implication she had extra footage than any of the other contestants. But I haven't followed the media about this so may of course be wrong.