Strictly Come Dancing '24 Thread 1 : Who will be our celebs and Pros?

[EineReiseDurchDieZeit]

Starting a new SCD thread for chat prior to the series as the last is about to fill.

These threads are usually helmed by @PolkadotsAndMoonbeams and I normally deputise, but I haven't seen her around in a while

This thread will discuss who has been chosen for the show, but not who has been paired with who as that's a spoiler for the first show.

This is a NO SPOILER thread

Get Ready To KEEP DANCING.

Just watched the whole thing. I'm largely behind Amanda and co as there are just too many people saying the same thing for me to think they're all just making it up but I did wonder about a few things she said.

First, she said nobody senior from the BBC has tried to understand her experience and yet she then goes on to detail an entire investigation underway seeming to be aimed at understanding her experience. Surely you wouldn't expect the top bosses to be involved directly? Or maybe you would - I have no direct experience of this sort of thing.

She also said she knew Giovanni didn't ask for the cameras because the producers came to her and said we're going to put in cameras so we can see what's going on. That seems odd. And it could quite possibly have been at Gio's request (she doesn't make it sound like it was at her request here but she's said it was elsewhere).

Not sure what to make of those two points.

I was going to say the same re the BBC bosses, conflicting comments from her.

Is anyone on here knowledgeable about the law in situations like this? I'm not so would be interested to know more about the process.

eg is it taking months to sort ou purely because it is borderline and shades of grey, as opposed to being clear cut?
Or are there other scenarios that could make it a long process?
If Gio has already left, and if he's not making an official complaint, then presumably he doesn't have to go through a disciplinary - so is the issue then whether the BBC agree with Amanda, and therefore whether they’ll pay compo? Which could take ages, esp if they're blocking the tapes being released. And like another poster, I cannot understand why they're allowed to do this? Can Amanda's lawyers stop them from destroying the footage?

The thing I'm most concerned about is the relentless pressure on her. She looks completely broken. It will take a lot for her to get over this - and if Gio is exonerated, it'll become even worse. I know someone who posted some horrific comments about it on FB this evening, yet she's one of the #bekind brigade. It's all so unhinged.

And all of this was triggered by a supposedly lighthearted entertainment programme.

I agree - she's been through the mill by the looks of things and I feel so bad for her. I'm also horrified by so many unkind and unhinged comments about the situation online. While I would tend to believe her account overall I know that people suffering from trauma can sometimes get the smaller details wrong. If that's happened I wonder if it might count against her, either because it's seen as making her genuinely unreliable or because they are angry at her and don't want to pay her compensation. I'd be curious to know who exactly is investigating and who their master is. Although I would hope there are no discrepancies and it's just that the story is complex.

I don’t know if I even want to watch it this year. Normally the highlight of my tv viewing.

Page 14 | Amanda Abbington and Strictly. | Mumsnet

It was started last year under Women's rights because Amanda was being dubbed a terf for saying drag shows weren't for children

Interview on ITVX now.
Being asked why speaking about it ahead of the investigation.
Says she is currently doing promotion for the play (iirc it starts 31st July as I looked it up, it looks interesting), so doing that publicity, it would have been weird to refuse to speak about it. She says she is honouring the complaint process by not going into specifics but thinks it is fair enough to say it was a toxic environment.
She texted the producer on the third day that Giovanni hated her, even though she was trying her best. She says the others who spoke to her had the same experience.
The eight month onslaught has taken its toll, "Watch your back!" means she's come off social media and doesn't go out as much, as left feeling vulnerable and exposed.
Amanda signed up to the play before she did Strictly.
Asked whether she felt confident about the investigation, she says she has nothing to hide and did nothing wrong and left with her head held high.
She is due to be married next year.

Christine Lampard isn't the strongest interviewer. For example, she read out Gio's spokesperson's statement but didn't delve into why what was being alleged yesterday was being framed as "new" - I'd have asked Amanda that.
Regarding the sexual humiliation comment, there was tattle at the time that Gio had made a comment about Jonathan. I'd have asked if he'd been mentioned or could that be ruled out, along with how much the whatsapp group knew of proceedings (did she have to submit the group chat as evidence) and if people knew about her/had they (including her) also heard anything about Graziano. Christine asked none of these things.

It added nothing really as the exclusive was obviously Krishnan's.
I still think his interview gave her more credibility, given he was a fellow-contestant. Lauren, his partner, would also know Gio from touring.

Shirley, however, has been shady alluding to him not being in the room.
"Surround yourself with people who fight for you in rooms you aren't in."

Given that Amanda says she first complained on the third day of rehearsals, when she and Giovanni were not yet established as a competing couple, the producers could have said, 'This isn't going to work, let's bring in Neil.' The show already has spare pros, builds up an ever bigger cache of spare pros as the couples get knocked out, and has had no problems sourcing last-minute pros in the past (as when Iveta stood in for Aliona).

Not sure what to make of the Nick Knowles rumour (The Sun usually has these casting rumours right). On the one hand he is a well-known celeb, on the other I find him a complete switch-off. Remember when he tried to become a country singer? Isn't he rumoured to be a bit skeevy? Much younger girlfriends, etc.?

Good for Shirley standing up for Gio, she knows what it takes to learn dancing. Also while the investigation is underway Amanda is telling everyone her side how is that correct?

I watched Amanda with christine lampard what struck me was the day 3 comment, she knew it wasn't working and nobody cared,

Then she should have left

Well she eventually did,

I kind of wanted Christine to dish the Goss on her time on Strictly. I'd like to think that Matthew was as quiet and lovely as he seemed. She was around in the heyday of Brendan and James. Wasn't it the John Sergeant series, too? I hated the way that he was treated by some of the judges and couples, especially by James. That was all really nasty.

I think christine saying her Strictly experience was different was fine, it wasn't about Christine really.

I suspect Christine was very limited in what she was allowed to ask. I would be very surprised if her questions didn’t have to be approved in advance by the programme’s lawyers given there’s an active investigation ongoing. I haven’t seen the interview myself though.

To be fair if she had left then, she would be getting the same sm treatment criticising her for not being able to hack it and having poor work ethic.

It just sounded to me that she raised an issue to stop it escalating and nobody listened so it escalated and now we are here!

I meant so it wouldn't escalate*

What, left and kept quiet, you mean?

You sound like someone who thinks a women who is assaulted by her husband should just leave him, but not tell the police about it so that charges can be brought. In other words, let there be no consequences for male on female abuse, assault and aggression.

This

He’s not her husband it’s a dancing show
She was free to leave anytime!
Lots have left before I absolutely do not think the way you have suggested quite the opposite but I still do not think she was bullied as she states.

Women who are beaten up by their husbands are "free to leave at any time" too.
You're spectacularly missing the point.

I cannot agree with you that she should have just left.
Why the hell should she?
She's been in rehearsal rooms for over three decades.
He had moments of kindness and positivity at times but then allegedly reverted back to stick-rather-than-carrot teaching, when he should have adapted his teaching.
Adaptive teaching/adaptive coaching is key.
Don't misunderstand me, I feel sorry for him in that:
a) it's bloody awful to be falsely accused of something (if it is false)
b) it's awful to be judged in the court of public opinion (for them both)
c) most teachers will tell you there'll be a memory they have where they lost their temper/shown impatience (we're all human)
However
a) some self-reflection is needed if this isn't your first complaint
b) you cannot leak things or denounce people at your shows then claim you're sticking to the code not to talk to the media
c) you cannot get away with strict without warm

Nobody is bigger than the show and nobody is untouchable.

"You sound like someone who thinks a women who is assaulted by her husband should just leave him, but not tell the police about it so that charges can be brought. In other words, let there be no consequences for male on female abuse, assault and aggression."

That's massively speculative and not very helpful to be fair.

This was explained beautifully upthread by esma
It was a turn of phrase. Two people having shared the same experience (except I'd argue she had it worse). It's hard work, they've both been through the mill (even Krishnan cried and saw the therapist and he loved his partner).
Tenor: Strictly Vehicle: trenches Common ground: The place, situation, or environment in which the most difficult or demanding work takes place.
It's a metaphor ffs same as "you've been in the wars" to a child that's injured.
But tabloids jumped on it, same way as PTSD, to make a false equivalence to Strictly alumni and war vets. Lazy journalism for gammon readers.

People who think she compared Strictly to being in the trenches are being wilfully obtuse. She used a common turn of phrase to denote she and Krishnan had a shared working experience.