A young woman has tragically taken her own life. There are so many aspects to all this, it is quite bewildering. Trolls, the media, the CPS and ITV are getting a kicking.
As far as I can tell, Caroline Flack was a successful, well liked TV presenter. I did watch her in Strictly and she was amazing. There was an expression in her dancing that the other contestants could not compete with, as though she had a bottomless well of emotion she could tap into at will. She was, quite rightly, lavished with praise.
Love Island is one of those shows that fascinates a young demographic who are nimble with their thumbs, like my millennial offspring and their partners. Caroline Flack had 2 million followers on Instagram. Feeding that beast must be quite a burden. I notice Davina McCall said yesterday that she was going to have a quiet evening on social media and it struck me that her followers must expect daily or even hourly updates. Clearly, maintaining your celebrity status involves a lot more than just looking pretty.
Then, there’s the incident. Flack’s boyfriend called the police claiming she had tried to kill him by hitting him over the head with a lamp. Plod turned up to find boyfriend with a head injury and the accommodation trashed. He failed to co-operate but the police persisted and the CPS thought there was enough evidence to charge. A previous boyfriend, restricted by a non-disclosure agreement, said he wasn’t surprised, hinting there might have been previous. Flack, declaring her innocence, removed herself from Love Island to await trial. As part of bail conditions, she was prohibited from any contact with the alleged ‘victim’. In the meantime, the press had a field day speculating on all the details.
There are convincing reports of serious depression. Her description of waking up the morning after winning Strictly captures depression perfectly. She said she felt so low it was as though she was secured to the bed with cling film, completely unable to start the day. She had tried a number of anti-depressants but, apparently, found they made her numb. That’s what they do, neutralise the troughs and the peaks. Today, posthumously, people say they knew she was ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ but it’s unclear what support she had in place.
Has Flack been hounded to her death by nasty comments on social media, inaccurate press reports, a cold vindictive CPS and an irresponsible lack of care from ITV? Or was she a privileged individual who felt she was entitled to smash someone over the head with a heavy object and get away with it but realised she was going to get her comeuppance?
Either way, it’s a tragedy. It’s hard to imagine that she would have faced much punishment, even if convicted, and she would soon have made a glittering comeback. Everyone adores a prodigal celeb after a period in the wilderness, wearing a hair shirt. Just look at Ant. Now that the job of being a celebrity involves a social media presence, are they not taught to rise above the trolls and ignore the news cycle when something has gone wrong? Nasty, tasteless comments aren’t going to stop until anonymity is removed and the press/TV have always depended on celebrity mishaps to shift units to a voracious, rubber-necked public.
Fingers can point in many directions. Things are never as simple as they seem. Facts are hard to pin down. It’s unlikely the truth will ever be known through the fog of misinformation and hearsay. Poor Caroline Flack has become another victim of the celebrity meeja wars, canon fodder for the massive money-making machines of tech and media in today’s rapidly moving world. She won’t be the last.
Here she is enjoying life:
I’d never heard of her until yesterday but it is clearly both tragic and scary and reminds us all that there are real people on the other end of Twatter etc, and the shit that gets poured all over them 24/7 does hurt and could have terrible consequences. I just hope if anything comes out of this it is that social media warriors dial it the fuck down a bit.
This has literally just happened and every person and their dog thinks they know who’s to blame, according to which axe they have to grind, i.e. the tabloids, social media. We don’t know but everyone wants to speculate and give their two penneth when they should just refrain.
A truly tragic turn of events. I’d never knowingly heard of Caroline Flack until the reports of her assault on her boyfriend. I suspect many women (and men) assault their partners on a regular but otherwise unpublicised basis.
The reporting in the national media, hiding behind the pretence of reporting on social media commentary, has escalated the unfortunate actions of one individual to her suicide.
Any life lost like this is tragic.
Apart from that, I think it best that I don’t contribute. My ex-wife sent me to hospital for internal and external stitches in gash she opened in forearm, and some in forehead. I may be inclined to be overharsh when it comes to women assaulting men in a domestic context.
I’m sorry to hear that, Si. It must have been dreadful.
Domestic violence is a very serious issue. Because many victims are ‘persuaded’ to withdraw their statement, the police & the CPS can take on a prosecution. If they feel there is enough evidence to present to a jury, the case goes to court even without the co-operation of the injured party. It is standard practice for bail conditions to ban contact between the alleged aggressor & agressee. Flack’s representatives are saying that it wasn’t in the public interest to prosecute a fragile, vulnerable individual in a ‘show’ trial. However, prosecutions are in the public interest. Too often, domestic violence escalates. The number of deaths per year are frightening. The CPS weren’t making it a show trial, either. It was her celebrity status doing that. Celebrities are not exempt from the law just because the press and the public are interested in their cases.
Thank you.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. I’ve read a number of articles claiming Flack shouldn’t have been prosecuted due to her fragile mental health. Try using that defence in court if you’re a non-famous, poor person.
That doesn’t mean I’m without sympathy – far from it. It’s just that the law supersedes celebrity: it’s designed to, at least in theory, establish some form of parity for all of society.
Thanks for filling me in, Tiggs, or people like me with no real conception of some of the manifestations of modern-day telly/ social media / tabloid angles on what apparently passes for entertainment. Had been wondering who she was and why so much coverage. A bracing story for our times, and so very sad.
Wise words Tiggs. Social Media has been unleashed with absolutely no regulation or assessment of risk and like a lot of these tech innovations it’s there and it’s FREE before anyone considers the consequences or gets chance to put in ways to control it, regulate it, train people to deal with it and use it in a healthy, constructive way.
So it goes unchecked, and used by people who are naive and shocked to find themselves at the receiving end of every fucked up thought anyone around the world can think to direct at them – thoughts and opinions that before this technology existed they would have no means of expressing other than pasting press cuttings on the wall and scrawling their hatred in marker pen. Human nature hasn’t changed, but Social Media gives a way for human nature to express itself unflinchingly if the dickhead chooses to – and it accelerates the fucking up of politics, galavanises terrorism and organised hatred – and surprise surprise – people get hurt and people die. I hope this is a wake up call – it probably won’t be enough but it’s a start.
But we’ve always had to deal with people’s views, however difficult or even just plain obnoxious we might find them.
The only difference is that there is the magnifying effect of many people expressing the same opinion.
But this is not new and reasons why the suicide rates are so high have been debated constantly; I think Led Zeppelin picked up the blame at one point.
I’m not sure if this helps, but freedom of speech does not necessarily imply an automatic responsibility on others to listen. I rarely bother with comments on the Guardian pages, avoid the below the line section on LBC video clips and wouldn’t even think of going to Mail Online. Experience has shown that there’s little to be gained from such places. Isn’t there a general longstanding recommendation to actors not to read their reviews?
This is far from intended as apportioning blame or responsibility in this particular case, of which I know little, but more a wider observation on an ever-evolving part of social culture. There’s potential danger in every new discovery and invention, but so far, we’ve generally learned to tame each one.
Very sad story but seems to me that the program she is most associated with, Live Island, embodies the essence of many of the problems that we have today. The incessant focus on private lives, physical beauty, relationships (but really sex), unreal lifestyles. I’m sure we all see our own kids dealing with this stuff day in day out and telling us oldies that it’s normal but at the same time obsessed with measuring their own ‘success’ against these vacuous ideals. We had it easy back in the day. I hope the future generations find a better balance.
Well said FF.
Domestic violence whether perpetrated by men or women should not be ignored. If my daughters boyfriend tried to seriously harm her with a lamp while she was asleep I would want the CPS to prosecute regardless of whether she did or not. Potentially one step away from achieving their goal.
Obviously her mental condition should have been properly addressed but I dont see how the CPS can be criticised for protecting those in danger.
Here’s a decent summary of the rationale:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51529975
My feeling is that the basis of her celebrity was on the sort of shows, as you imply, that are shallow, trashy and fuelled by/focused on social media – they are *intended* to foment discussion/controversy/opinions among a viewership that primarily exists within the social media world. I’ve no idea if its in the contracts of the people hired to present those shows to be active on those shows’ behalf on social media, but I daresay it’s expected. People who present those sort of shows are akin to lion-tamers in a circus ring with an unruly crowd. There may be a perception that they are ‘other’ than the lions (the idiots who go on those programmes looking for their 15 minutes of fame, or feeding their own narcissism), but in some regards, they are in the same predicament – at the mercy of that unruly crowd. I think from here on in, presenters would be wise to think twice about accepting jobs on shows that are akin to modern freak shows, where the online audience will destroy you at the drop of a hat or report of an indiscretion.
On the money, Col.
ITV Studios executive, interviewing potential Love Island presenter: “What’s your Twitter presence like, and how about your Facebook?”
Applicant: “Oh, I don’t do either of them, they are just a toxic pool of losers screaming at each other and wasting their lives.”
ITV Studios executive: “Thanks, but you’re not the right person for this job. Next!”
The irony is that social media has been full of ‘positive’ platitudes over last 2 days. If I see one more ‘Be kind to each other’ ….
Yes, getting people to stop saying it and walk the walk (for more than their usual attention span) is the challenge.
Surely it’s not the ‘positive platitudes’ that are the problem, aren’t they a good thing? Social media platforms are full of ‘positive’ platitudes every day, it’s just that every hateful comment gets the attention. I’d rather see ‘be kind to each other’ than ‘you fucking cunt’
Unfortunately, a lot of the same airheads are saying both things. Shallow people “like” or “love” the positive messages but carry on revelling in scandal and muckraking, even joining in, instead of taking the positive messages to heart.
Agreed, but it’s not the message that’s the problem.
Caroline Flack was a well known face on the London media party scene, so I wonder how much drugs had to do with how things ended up. She also had a relationship with Harry Styles from One Direction when she was in her 30s and he was just 17. Imagine the kerfuffle if the ages had been swapped.
I await this weeks Popbitch mailout with interest.
Apparently she copped a lot of social media hate for that too.
It seems the CPS decided to pursue prosecution even though the boyfriend only had a scratch, and the blood on the sheets was hers. Or so said a tweet that whizzed by some time today. If true, seems like there are more questions to answer.
If you want another example of a woman suffering extreme injustice, have a look at the excellent documentary on Ruth Ellis on BBC4. First episode is on iPlayer. Shocked me to the core, despite the ill-judged and irrelevant film noir movie clips that kept popping up. First-class detective work.
Yes. The family have released an Instagram post in which Flack states her boyfriend’s injury was an accident.
I think there was little doubt that the worst she’d have got, as a first time offender, was a slap on the wrist and she had every chance of being found not guilty. Makes it even more sad that she didn’t get her day in court.
I’ll look out for that Ruth Ellis documentary. My daughter loves that kind of stuff.
That the blood on the sheets was hers is her claim.
When I was admitted, I claimed my injuries were gardening related because…domestic circumstances.
There must have been something going on for the polis to arrive and the CPS to arrive at the decisions they did.
If the gender roles had been reversed, no-one would be raising an eyebrow at her treatment. Sad though her death is. no-one gets a pass on account of their gender. Female domestic abuse is underreported because it’s a difficult subject.