Caroline Flack - 1980-2020

Yeah, that seems to make sense I suppose. I remember years ago having a row with an ex, we lived in a flat so plenty of neighbours around us. She was extremely volatile and just went off on one screaming and shouting and wouldn’t drop whatever it was as she’d had a fair bit to drink as well. One of the neighbours must have called the police, they turned up and insisted they take her away and lock her up for the night, this was despite me insisting it really wasn’t necessary, that she hadn’t physically harmed me or anything bad etc etc. They said they had no choice in the circumstances, and this was purely based on neighbours hearing her acting aggressively, and without any sort of domestic violence actually having happened.

 

Spot on. You go back 10 or 15 years and this vacuous, brain dead culture was largely confined to idiot publications like OK and Hello. More recently it's exploded across TV and social media and sucked more people in.

Neither me or the wife have ever had any inclination to watch Love Island or any of the many utterly ******** scripted reality TV shows. I'm pretty sure (hope) that our views on it have been passed onto the kids.

In a world full of interesting, exciting things to do and experience, it's so sad that people settle for that as entertainment, or even worse, aspire to it.

 

I saw this tweet from David Badiel posted a few times:
https://twitter.com/baddiel/status/122875139766480992?s=21
The point about nasty nick and no big brother contestants killing themselves is very relevant. The show was basically the same concept, but back then they could leave the show and to an extent forget about it. In this day and age you have trolls messaging you directly on every social media platform with horrible poisonous bile, it’s now inescapable.

 

Fair point. By non-entity I mean everyone not famous, including me. It wasn't meant as an insult to those lured into seeking fame via reality TV but I can see how it can be read that way.

 

It’s a common misconception the only evidence available in these circumstances is the witness evidence in chief from the victim. Yet if you take it to the extreme and think about it logically, every murder conviction happens in the absence of the victim’s testimony. So it’s perfectly possible if there’s sufficient public interest in pursuing that approach. In domestic violence cases the justification used is the one @Robert Peel explained.

Absent her boyfriend’s support for the prosecution there will still be the original 999 call, video footage from the attending officers’ body worn cameras proving who said what when they arrived, the photographs of the scene, anything overheard or maybe even seen by neighbours and pictures of injuries. Plus any recorded history of domestic incidents between them. It’s possible to build a pretty compelling case even where the victim isn’t on board.

Another common misconception is that people in this country ‘press charges’. It’s an Americanism. The decision to begin most or end every criminal prosecution lies with the CPS alone.

 

Thanks for the explanation. That does make sense, I guess being in the public eye the CPS can’t be seen to not be taking potential domestic abuse seriously, not that they shouldn’t have been anyway - what she allegedly did was a crime.

It must have been very difficult for her to not be able to speak to her boyfriend at all and what with her life being strewn all over gutter press every day without any real right of reply.

The sad thing is people are drawing comparisons between her and the bloke from I’m a celeb. The exact same thing happened with him, he wasn’t treated any differently. He committed a crime, was taken off the air, was given time to deal with it and rehabilitate and was allowed back on a year later. I’ve no doubt exactly the same thing would’ve happened with her. People make mistakes, they have to deal with them but once dealt with there is no reason they can’t then get back on with their lives.

 

You were doing well and then you lost it by trying to score a political point. Not the place.

 

What do you make of this claim that the boyfriend was not allowed to see her? Were these actual court conditions and if so is that common?

 

https://twitter.com/barristersecret/status/1228982815024467969?s=21

An interesting thread on the framework of the CPS in these kinds of cases. Pretty much as UEA has said above - but there is valid criticism that the CPS and ‘system’ isn’t sufficiently human enough to consider the fallout.

 

It was a court bail condition, yes. I imagine the legal justification for it was to prevent further offences and to prevent them working in cahoots to undermine the prosecution. It was probably put in place by the police when she was arrested and charged, and then approved by the court at the first hearing. I’m sure the defence opposed the non-contact condition so it would have been for the court to decide.

The system reflects society. And society doesn’t give a toss about suspects/defendants in criminal cases. So no government is going to spend time or money dealing with it. It’s sad because some of the things - eg. the ridiculous amount of time it takes cases to reach trial - affect all sides.

 

Playing devils advocate I guess it can be tricky though. If more allowances were made for the impact of prosecution on mental health, would it not make it far more easily exploited? It’s an extremely difficult one that’s way beyond my capabilities to even begin to have answers to. You’d almost have to say for anyone who isn’t a hardened criminal that ends up in this sort of situation, there will inevitably be some impact on your mental health to some sort of degree.

 

And that did seem possible. I just wondered whether it is usual, given how many DV cases end up with the victim returning to the perpetrator only to be more seriously injured or even killed?

 

Social media is all about building the brand after the contestants have been on the show. Flack could have closed her social media like others, but it was part of her career, part of her management, part of her money making.

Which is fine. But she could have chosen to move on without it. She was 'famous' enough. But again, it was all about the use of it to make money.

What risked her career was her serial domestic abusing, whether this was due to a mental issue, certainly we won't know but the CPS had to do something as her current boyfriend wasn't the first to report it.

She was clearly vulnerable and got no help - certainly not from her vast number of employers, her management agencies and most notably her family.

 

I agree fully. That post was more in relation to the two contestants that killed themselves after going on the show. 10/15 years ago a ‘baddie’ on BB could’ve largely got on with their lives after the show, but somebody who has been in something like Love island will not be able to avoid the relentless trolling and criticism.

 

Which is why, contrary to those who say the show isn't part of the problem (who probably watch it religiously and aren't impartial), the show is most certainly part of the problem.

The general public are mostly idiots and can't differentiate between characters on a TV show and real life, much like football fans think players only leave their houses to train and play games. If you tap into that idiocy for profit, trolling will ensue.

 

I’ve only anecdotal evidence but yes I’d say it’s common to impose such conditions.

 

Yes, the show itself didn’t directly contribute to her death (unlike potentially the two contestants who killed themselves) however it’s absolute trash tv which is based on crushing people’s feelings for entertainment. Those that enjoy it are more likely going to be your typical sun readers, so when this happened the sun running her into the ground on a daily basis appealed directly to the same people that watch the show. Hence it was in the Sun’s interest to do so and therefore the show itself is still a contributing factor to what happened. If she was the presenter of newsnight they would run the initial story, but no doubt left it there as it wouldn’t have been of further interest to their readership.

 

I wouldn't have said the typical Sun reader watches Love Island; it's hardly a working class bloke thing. More your Hello ABC1 readership.

 

I’d disagree, it’s definitely more a female thing but plenty of blokes watch it. At the risk of massively stereotyping, as an example there are two scaffolders on the show at the moment, I assume they don’t read the guardian and presumably they’ve watched the show before to want to be on it in the first place.

 

I know a scaffolder. Hardest bloke you'll ever meet. No way those fancy Dans are scaffolders.

 

Absolute rubbish, I was arguing against others trying to score a political point by suggesting it is only the right wing press spreading muck, by pointing out it comes from across the board, and then I went on to make a totally non-political point about intrusion into public people's personal lives, and the associated hypocrisy.

You can't preach on one hand that personal lives become everyone's property, and then preach the opposite when it suits you, and someone dies.

 

(Almost) Completely agree - but we simply don’t know what her family did or didn’t do so that’s a bit unfair to say at this point. More than enough people commit suicide, family aren’t complicit in each and every case.

 

And I didn’t do so. But this is not the thread to debate it.

 

I disagree, it is relevant and no better place to debate it than when someone has (it seems) become a tragic victim.

 

There are good as well as bad things about social media - I was surprised to hear recently one stat, that says that 80% of people get jobs through social media. I don't know what kinds, but I'm guessing predominantly Linkedin, followed not too far behind by Twitter for the most part.

The good part is that social media favours jobseekers who are naturally extrovert with a wide circle of friends and contacts but haven't really had their "big break", are keen on networking and IT with an aptitude for both. The bad part is that, in an increasingly competitive job market, it puts those who are the exact opposite at a disadvantage, more so than before social media became such a big thing.

 

If that stat means people become aware of jobs through social media - maybe: but I wonder if it actually includes the “old fashioned” internet search/email.

If it means that people are recruited via employers looking on social media - nope, surely 80% is much too high.

 

If I remembered it right and it's about actually getting jobs via social media, then I took it to mean those who proactively look for jobs by building a network of contacts on social media sites, connecting with prospective employers etc, as alluded to in the second paragraph of my previous post.

But it may be I misremembered it, and the stat only applies to people who look for jobs through social media platforms, which could mean no more than simply searching and applying for jobs posted on LinkedIn.

But I remembered it surprised me, probably because even it were the latter scenario, I took it to mean people who look for jobs by actively networking, getting in touch directly with employers or people who know someone who works for the company and can endorse your skills/experience etc. That kind of thing requires a fair bit of skill, initiative and courage, but with the way social media in the last decade has become more ever-present with potential employees and employers alike attaching more importance to it for better or for worse, it seems that's become the way to look for work for many, especially millennials. Though how would one be able to come up with such a stat (which is harder to confirm than if these people actually got those jobs), other than surveying a very small percentage of jobseekers?

 

I can’t see how that can be right, though. How many manual, shop work etc type jobs appear on LinkedIn?

 

Typical Sun newspaper reader probably doesn't but the online articles (of which there were a few about flack apparently) that are pumped out through their social media do reach their intended market. I'm in no doubt that the Sun and Daily Mail pump out articles about people and then have their troll accounts spark up controversial debate in the comments section to try and draw people in and get the retweets/shares.

 

Meanwhile that unfunny bell end bullied Watford legend Jason Lee week in week out about his haircut. Hypocritical twerp.

 

Just like talk sport do on their shows

 

Good point

 

The standards we expect of light entertainment tv tv presenters and our prime minister are subtly different. We probably need more scrutiny on the trustworthiness of one than the other.

 

I find it interesting the way her dating a 17 year old boy, when she was 31 was treated by the media.

If the genders of the participants were reversed, it would surely have ended the older person's career then and there.