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.

Laura Whitmore was very good and they didn't get on.

A dressing down for what? Treatment of his partner?

Glad I could make you laugh, happy to help.

Bullies need someone who is prepared to go "all in" on them, and if AA has the resources and backbone to lawyer up and take the strongest stance possible then good for her..

Most people don't know how to react immediately to bullying situations, or will just "keep the trauma with them until it explodes".

I actually don't think the production company are innocent here either so if this case shines a light on any manipulative or exploitative behaviour then that also is a good thing to bring out.

I suspect they choose to engineer conflict, or encourage certain behaviours, or make things more intense and dramatic to get more headlines and more money and viewers.

The people who gave rise to the term shell shock were young men who were permanently traumatised watching their fellow soldiers being blown to pieces in the WWI trenches, and living in constant fear for their lives. People now claim to have PTSD because their partner on a dance show wasn't very nice to them. It's bizarre.

@Ravenbright Even if it’s a legitimate claim, I still think she’s going to have a hard job getting compensation for any type of injury or stress sustained on Strictly, their contracts must cover this as injuries are so frequent.

She might get him fired though if there’s evidence of bullying beyond rigorous training.

that doesnt make sense,
he got on with the ringers and good dancers,
but not AA who was a good dancer

And this thread is why most women do not speak up.

There's a world of difference between keeping silent and claiming PTSD, though.

She supports women’s rights, which for some men is the worst thing possible.

I'm not laughing. As I said before I have ptsd. Whatever this is she does not have ptsd.

As her psychiatrist, I hope you get struck off for gross breach of confidentiality.

What is that? You’re not her psychiatrist and are just making baseless remarks?

It is as always what duty of care the BBC have here. It’s quite clear for reality shows such as Big Brother and Love Island that stringent psychological profiling should be done and support offered. On I’m a Celeb it’s clear that Nella Rose was offered support afterwards.

do the bbc here as well - Annabelle Croft was a huge risk that worked with Johannesburg. Amanda Abington does have history as well how much care is taken in picking partners. Giovanni has form, how much do they think about pairings and how it works.

should they be aware of contestants history and therefore care in who is picked because anyone paying any attention to the past of these two could see it wasn’t a pairing that was going to work. same with Karen Hauer and Will Young.

unless Giovanni has massively crossed the line he is not to blame. whether the bbc have in failing in a duty of care is different

How do you actually know @Hospitalshmospital ?

It's not baseless. She was a contestant on a dance show. There is no scenario that could meet the definition of ptsd. She's an actress, making it into a drama all about her. I find her claims insulting to those of us who genuinely suffer from ptsd. It's disgusting.

why is someone saying they are her psychiatrist and posting on here?

Was she "very good"?

Only time will tell what happened between them or indeed whether Amanda's complaint is against him or the production itself. Being a participant in a reality television programme is brutal and TV production companies are notorious for neglecting the emotional needs of the contestants. As a bit of a tangent if you are interested in the darker side of reality TV, this podcast was brilliant - Edge of Reality by Jacques Peretti.

I have a very good idea of what PTSD is, on a professional basis. I think you misunderstood my post. As I was at pains to point out, not meeting the definition of PTSD does NOT mean what somebody experienced was trivial or not traumatic.

You are correct, we don’t know exactly what happened to Amanda. If she saw a death, or thought she or someone else could die, she may well have PTSD. Or she could be traumatised by other experiences, eg workplace bullying.

It would be a pity of people felt they could only be taken seriously if they use the term ‘PTSD’. All trauma should be taken seriously.

You are basing your judgement on the glossy finished product the BBC screen. You have absolutely no idea what she had to deal with that was not made public.

As for being an actress, MeToo passed you by I presume?

They aren't, it was a sarcastic comment by another poster, that's all.

I was being facetious in response to someone declaring she didn’t have PTSD when they could not possibly know. But seems that was a bit too sophisticated for you?

I believe her, he sounds like a bully

In what way?

I do think it is a language and perception thing which is why we can't all agree.

It's very much like the way 'Icon' and 'Legendary' gets thrown around today. A few weeks ago I saw someone refer to Louise Thompson using these words and since I didn't know who she was I had to google her only to find out that she's some reality TV person from a series called Made in Chelsea circa 2018.

For me, (I'm 57) a 'legendary Icon' would be someone like Edith Piaf or Elvis or Marilyn Monroe, not someone off a reality TV show from 5 years ago!

The public will make their own minds anyway:

Phil Schofield had an ill advised but essentially legal affair - evil pariah akin to Savile

Ant McPartlin knowingly drink or drug drove, smashed into two cars and injured a child - bless him, let’s give him all of it back on a plate.

The public / media choose to make or break careers whether on not there is evidence of wrong doing. Some they forgive (whether innocent or guilty) some they don’t.

Will wait to see how the cards fall on this one.

(And I am now waiting for the Schofield haters to cry about it being abuse of power, when my ACTUAL point is about how the illegal and obvious danger posed by McPartlin has been completely forgiven, showing the double standards of the British public whatever happens).