A few days ago I wrote a blog about the ongoing Strictly Scandal and noted that I thought that history would be kind to Amanda Abbington for calling out her experiences on the show.

Yesterday evening she was on Channel 4 news discussing her truth in more depth. It made sense for her to be interviewed by Krishnan Guru-Murthy as he had a unique take on the situation having appeared in the same series as Amanda. What was evidenced in the programme was that Amanda’s difficult time on Strictly had been an open secret. They spoke discretely about a particular incident that had been discussed amongst a wider group of people. At various points in the interview, Amanda’s poor mental health was clear as she’d involuntarily start to tear up when discussing it. As anybody with any experience of depression/anxiety would know those uncontainable moments are frustrating when you’re attempting to demonstrate your strength over a certain narrative.

Amanda’s truth was straightforward though – she had spoken out about an unsafe environment where she was expected to be vulnerable. Whilst things were put in place to protect her ie cameras, it would appear that her complaints were acknowledged but nothing was actioned to stop the abuse, they just recorded it. The context becomes more perverse on learning that others had allegedly previously raised the red flag on the same person for the same reasons. . . yet the BBC failed to act on the issue, instead choosing to simply place another potential “victim” in the same environment with no intervention.

Amanda claims that she felt like she had no choice but to speak out because why was it OK for a woman (or indeed anybody) to be put in that position? This is not a new script for Amanda – she was one of the Patrons of The MTA, and every time she came in to chat to the students she spoke of an innate responsibility as a more established actor to speak out about injustices on set. She said this to empower the students to expect to be treated fairly whilst working within our industry. It wasn’t wrong to expect a safe space to work in, it was the basic of expectations.

Whilst her speech was empowering I wonder how those students feel now having seen her stay true to her principles and yet be subjected to so much hate both online and in the press? Today I’ve mostly been challenging a few of the posts that have caught my eye on Twitter (as was), trying to understand how Amanda’s truth was met with cries of “why doesn’t she just bore off”, “is anyone else sick of her whinging”, “she’s turned the Giovanni situ into a massive smear campaign”, with lots taking her trenches comment out of context, “how would the silly bitch know about fighting in the trenches”, or how about “I hate her, she ruined everything. She deserves to zip her mouth”. I’ve read countless anonymous accounts all claiming to have either worked with her, or claiming to know Giovanni. Lots of the hate centres around the belief that she’s transphobic “she was the one who spewed disgusting words at him and was always late and being transphobic. That hag should be banned from acting again” Or what about the ones that threw everything at her “she can fuck right off the transphobic cunt. Can see why Martin Freeman divorced her. . . awful, rancid, self-indulgent wanker”

I wondered how I would feel if I was mentally feeling quite vulnerable reading that stuff day in, day out. Would I be strong enough to unhook myself from social media, or would I be reading it all and doubting my own lived experience? I wondered how my children would feel reading that bile, noting that this stuff was some of the tamer things that I’d been reading. Amanda spoke of death threats and rape threats, I mean that’s some cognitive dissonance, isn’t it? Call out an alleged bully and get annihilated yourself for putting your head above the parapet. I’m minded of all the rape victims that “asked for it”, whilst at the same time reading adverts telling women to report all crimes as they’ll be taken seriously.

The media have a huge role to play in this online hatred – day after day of made-up articles designed to sell newspapers not protect anybody. . . other than the brand. People have been saturated with articles leaving them bereft of empathy. It’s the Markle effect. . . a drip-fed narrative administered over months. Why have the BBC negated their duty of care for a contestant on one of their programmes, whilst publically acknowledging that there’s an issue and putting in more safeguarding?

I guess the pertinent questions though include why do people feel empowered on social media to write such hate with no consequences. Social media exploded with nobody thinking about the rules of engagement and with no way of meaningfully regulating it. Online life is now intrinsically toxic. Little wonder that we’ve seen the mental health endemic explode. Why would anybody subject themselves to that level of hatred? Who sent the memo saying that if somebody once said something you disagreed with they were now fair game to be abused? As a society what do we do to moderate “fans” who cross the line living up to the “fanatic” definition?

The people who I’ve engaged with online today appear to have zero regard for the real-life consequences of their bile. I doubt that they would say these things in person, proof if proof was needed of the online disinhibition effect, how insidious it is and how it’s encroaching on our day-to-day interactions. Whilst this all inevitably comes down to poor attachment these parasocial interactions are contributing to the toxicity perpetuated by a biased media, who when things take a desperate turn (referencing Caroline Flack) will turn around and wonder how it went so wrong.

It’ll be a brave individual who’ll pop their head above the parapet next which is such a shame as Amanda was right, requesting a safe environment to work in should be the most basic of requests.