It’s been several months since news of a growing “scandal” on Strictly Come Dancing started being written about in the press. This is not a programme I watch other than when some friends have been on it – in which case I’ve tuned in to be the proud ‘friend at home’ in awe of their newfound ability.

However, as an avid observer and commentator of the right-wing press media, I’ve been fascinated watching how the story has been reported. The claim (lest we forget) is that some of the professional dancers have been abusive/bullying in their teaching techniques with the celebs, leading to one contestant finally leaving the process mid-series as they (allegedly) couldn’t take the abuse anymore, and therefore went to protect their mental health.

It would be naive to think that the contracts issued to the celebs didn’t contain clauses around ‘protecting the brand’, or not ‘bringing the brand into disrepute’, as clearly Strictly is a hugely important and no doubt lucrative part of the Saturday evening schedules. Of course clauses like this censor critics and close down much-needed conversations.

I’m instantly drawn into making a comparison with dance and drama colleges, regularly called out for alleged abusive behaviour, yet student voices get lost as the colleges protect their brand reputation rather than dealing with the issues within.

When it became apparent that a formal complaint was going to be made the logical thing at this point would have been for the media to keep quiet until the investigation had concluded. However for the last few months on a weekly, sometimes daily basis right-wing papers, specifically the Daily Mail, have written article after article giving their opinion on an investigation that they know nothing about, clearly fed lines by PR companies and potentially ‘friends’, yet given how many times they’ve discussed “an anonymous source” does bring that narrative into question.

Amanda Abbington was the celeb that has “created a fuss”. Even though a law firm was alleged to be acting for several clients, it is only Amanda’s name that has been attached to the class action with any certainty. Given that Amanda has been a polarising figure within the culture wars, it’s fair to say that she’s already courted some controversy with her stream-of-consciousness social media posts. She has also in the past been very open about her mental health struggles – a point worth making I think.

With that history behind her (and throw in a public spat with the Mail over an article they wrote years ago about her which she called them out on), we’ve now seen months of negative, derogatory articles written about her, always accompanied by a picture of her looking knackered in the rehearsal room. Meanwhile, the articles about the alleged perpetrator, Giovanni Pernice have been celebratory, telling readers how he’s innocent and he’s been rocked by the allegations. The pictures accompanying his stories are always of him looking suave and in control

At one point, the Mail published an article by Amanda Platell (who has written several negative pieces about Amanda over the years), claiming that Abbington was mentally unstable, and had been since the break up of her partnership several years before. It must be one of the most vindictive articles I’ve ever read (and I regularly keep up with what Sarah Vine writes).

When other celebs have come forward to say about their less than favourable experiences the Mail’s response has been, why now, and did Abbington put them up to it? Interestingly when Zara McDermot made an allegation they were very sympathetic, maybe because her perpetrator had been fired immediately.

The narrative being spun is that the celebs just weren’t up to the rigours of the dance competition, and didn’t understand the way that dancers trained. Except of course, that’s not strictly (no pun intended) true. Many of the celebs had prior dance training, in fact, Abbington is a great case in point as she spent some time at Laine’s – so she would have been very aware of the level of training needed at this level.

Midway through the investigation, the BBC changed tact from ‘nothing to see here’ to ‘OK we’ll put chaperones in every room, as welfare is important to us’. Maybe if they’d shown that level of care when concerns were first raised they wouldn’t be in this mess now. Maybe if they’d educated their professional dancers around teaching methods, or looked into complaints when they were first raised years ago, none of this would have been necessary. It strikes me as acting after the rather hefty horse has bolted. It also strikes me that clearly, the concerns raised by Abbington were not without merit.

The investigation is due to conclude over the next couple of weeks, yet I’m still confused why an allegation of abuse/bullying, has seen somebody with known mental health issues, vilified several times a week by a newspaper and its columnists, while the alleged perpetrator has been favourably reviewed at all times. I don’t understand why they had to write a column on it quite so often, as surely the decent thing to do for all parties involved would have been to let the investigation run its course and then write about the saga.

The fact that the BBC have now changed their stance on their duty of care to the celebs (and dancers), is surely proof that Abbington was right to raise a concern. Yet I’m concerned at what personal cost that has been to her and her mental health.

At a time when the media catch up with the stats on male-to-female violence, it seems particularly perverse to be actively writing against the alleged victim of a ‘scandal’. At a time when people are more aware of mental health issues, it seems perverse to be metaphorically kicking someone when they’re down to protect a brand.

It takes a lot of guts to say when something is wrong – especially when you face the wrath of seemingly everyone in doing so. Yet I suspect that history will look rather kindly on Abbington as she raised the red flag, thereby giving other people the courage to voice their concerns too. I would also like to think that the repercussions of this investigation ripple throughout the training industry, as old-style negative teaching methods need to be replaced with psychologically proven methods which push students out of their comfort zone, without adhering to old-style thinking such as ‘breaking people’ to build them back up. As research clearly shows us – not everybody is ‘rebuilt’, and many remain ‘broken’.