What Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp Tells Us About How Society STILL Sees Abuse...

Most of you have probably heard all about Johnny Depp and Amber Heard's marriage break-up, amid rumours of domestic violence.  Most of you have probably got an opinion on it.  A lot of you - whether you realise it or not - will have had that opinion shaped by the media and by societal beliefs when it comes to abuse.

Don't believe me?  Just Google it.  That's what I did, when I decided to write this blog piece and I was pretty horrified.  The top stories - predictably - were referencing Depp's ex wife Vanessa Paradis, who recently made the decision to wade into the controversy by proclaiming Johnny to be a gentle soul who would never hurt anyone.  Below those stories, were headlines about how poor Johnny had been "driven insane" by the thought of his wife cheating on him.  And of course, you can find stories about how the actor's family had never liked Amber Heard anyway and how she was almost certainly making up these "lies" about domestic abuse in order to make millions out of one of Hollywood's biggest stars.

Why?  Why is the media so quick to jump to conclusions?  

We don't know what really happened, yet.  I, personally, always choose to believe someone who claims to have been abused, because I know from experience how atrocious it feels to go through any kind of abuse and have people claim that you're making it up.  It's a lonely, frustrating, frightening place to be.  I've been in the position of being told I was "lying for attention" when I was trying to open up about what I'd experienced with my ex.  It was HELL.  When a person has been abused, they need support, they need empathy and they need people to tell them that what they're saying is being taken seriously.  So, despite the fact that we don't know all of the details yet and despite the fact that Johnny Depp has always been amongst my favourite actors (and Hollywood crushes...), I refuse to start slinging mud at Amber Heard and accusing her of lying.  If she is, then it's a despicable lie to tell.  If she's not, then we need to seriously look at media coverage of this, because it shows up just how far we still have to go, when it comes to public understanding of abuse.

The photo Amber Heard submitted to court, of the injury she alleges Johnny Depp to have inflicted on her.

Regardless of whether or not Johnny Depp did subject his wife to a dreadful and vicious assault, the reaction from the press and some sections of the public have shown - yet again - that we haven't a clue how to deal with accusations of abuse.  Nor do we seem to understand how abuse even works.

Rather than report on the facts as we know them - that Amber Heard filed for divorce and has since been granted a temporary restraining order against Depp - the press have, in typical fashion, gone down the route of dragging up Amber Heard's sexual past, insinuating that her abuse claims are motivated by money (Depp's divorce lawyer has stated as such and the press seem to have run with it) and providing what look frighteningly like excuses for any potentially abusive behaviour that Depp may have displayed.

"He was driven insane with fear that his bisexual wife was cheating on him." - The Daily Mail

"Amber filed for divorce just three days after the death of Depp's beloved mother." - The Mirror

"He found it difficult to cope with the amount of female friends his wife, who had previously admitted being bisexual, surrounded herself with." - The Mirror

"As (Amber & friend Cara Delevingne) spent more time partying and flaunting their friendship, Johnny, 52, is said to have become increasingly infuriated by their behaviour." - The Sun

Now, I am NOT going to sit here and claim that Johnny Depp absolutely 100% abused his wife, because I can't do that without having a much greater inside knowledge of the situation than I have (I can say I believe Amber Heard, but I can't say "yep, he definitely did it").  BUT, considering that the press are reporting on hugely serious claims that a very famous Hollywood actor left his wife fearful for her life, due to his abusive outbursts, should they really be interested in Amber's sexuality, or her friendships with women?  Because, regardless as to whether or not it's their intent, in doing so, the press are providing readers with an excuse.  If they choose to believe that Depp did hit Amber in the face with his phone, causing the bruises seen above, they can also write it off as the action of a man driven to extremes by his wife's behaviour.  The unspoken message is: If he did it, he did it because she made him.

I've not used my big NO in a while, but it seems appropriate, here.

The press may genuinely believe that they're providing important context, or striving for a balanced view, but they're actually making the common mistake of forgetting one, vital thing:  THERE IS NEVER AN EXCUSE FOR ABUSE.  In providing their readers with one - again, whether intentionally or not - the media are suggesting that certain behaviours cause a person to abuse their partner, and all that suggestion does is further the culture of victim-blaming and misconception that already surrounds the subject.

Bolstered by the phrasing used in the papers and in online reports, Depp's fans took to social media to attack Amber Heard for her behaviour, stating that her flirting with female friends and her love of partying wound poor Johnny up to the point where it's almost understandable that he snapped.  And sure, maybe it would be understandable if he merely snapped in as much as he shouted "hey, I'm sick of the way you're behaving" and suggested that they split.  But that's not the accusation, here.  The accusation is that he swung a glass bottle around, screaming, damaging property and eventually hitting Amber in the face with his phone, leaving a visible bruise.  The allegation is of abuse.  That abuse - if it took place - would have been a conscious choice, as abuse always is, and that is NOT okay.

One Depp fan claimed on Twitter that Amber's behaviour during her marriage to Johnny was tantamount to emotional abuse and therefore Depp was acting in self-defence and should not be punished.  OKAY, LET'S GET VERY REAL:  Almost five years ago, I was in an emotionally/psychologically abusive relationship.  For over a year and a half, I was cheated on, put down, mocked, threatened, used and generally put through the worst Hell of my life.  If I wanted to "get my own back" on my abuser, perhaps it would be understandable.  But if I actually beat him up, I would still have committed abuse.  I would still therefore be an abuser, myself.  I couldn't claim self-defence, unless he had physically attacked me first and emotional abuse is notoriously hard to prove.  And despite knowing the anger and frustration being emotionally abused can create in a person, I know I could never have actually beaten up my ex.  Why?  Well, for a start, he was bigger and stronger than me.  I was afraid of his temper.  Johnny Depp is bigger and, arguably stronger than Amber Heard.  Even if she was behaving cruelly towards him, physical violence was totally and completely unnecessary.  Whatever she did, however she behaved, Depp had the option not to assault her.  If Amber's allegations are true, he made a choice to beat her face with his phone.  No amount of being scared that she was cheating on him, or feeling as though she didn't respect him makes that alright.  But when these facts were pointed out to said Depp fan on Twitter, she claimed that "Amber supporters" were casually excusing her behaviour, whilst criticising Johnny's.  That's not the case; all anyone is saying is that abuse isn't the answer to anything and that it's wrong to make excuses as to why someone might choose to physically assault their spouse.  

Emotional abuse is wrong.  Physical abuse is wrong.  ANY abuse is wrong.  Why am I still having to say that in 2016?!

The press have this vile habit of looking for reasons whenever a celebrity makes an allegation of abuse.  It fuels those water-cooler conversations, where people at work natter about serious topics such as abuse, as though it's flippant gossip.  "Oh, I heard she cheated on him.  Poor bloke, watching his wife flirt with other women in front of him.  I bet he was just so gutted and upset, he couldn't help but snap.  And he's proper gorgeous, isn't he?  I still would, you know!  *nudge, wink*"

And that leads me neatly on to the other thing that society still continues to get wrong, when it comes to abuse.  We STILL seem to believe that abusers are ugly-looking types in stained vests, outwardly creepy, openly unpleasant and probably on low incomes.  No matter how many times it's proven, over and over, that abusers can come from anywhere, look as gorgeous as an angel and be as charming as it's possible to be, we still cling to the belief that it could never, ever be someone we know or like.  Oh, no.  We'd be able to tell.  Abusers are horrible.  Actors, musicians. respected writers... We like them.  They're funny in interviews!  They look incredible on the red carpet!  They have talent!  How can they possibly be abusive?!  Don't be stupid.

And just to further compound that ridiculous belief, the friends and family come rushing out in defence, just as they have in the Depp case.  "He's lovely; I've seen him with his romantic partners and he's adorable."  Except...  Well, nobody knows what's going on behind closed doors, besides the people who are actually living behind them.  When I walked away from my abusive ex, I lost a friend I'd had since I was twelve years old, because she just couldn't believe that the man she knew - and had been out with herself - could possibly have treated me the way I claimed he had.  But here's the thing: abusers are great at portraying themselves well in public.  They have to be charming.  They have to be good at manipulating people.  They wouldn't be able to abuse at all if they weren't, because nobody would fall for the act.  My ex was funny, intelligent, seemingly sensitive and up for a laugh with his friends.  If I had asked around after I left him, I can say with almost 100% certainty, that not one of those friends would have labelled him as abusive.  Because they weren't there when he was abusive.  That was all for me.

This utterly stupid notion that people who seem clever, witty and who look good can't possibly be nasty in private is one of the major reasons that people who experience abuse don't speak out.  They fear they won't be believed.  And all too often, we see that fear realised.

Amber & Johnny.  Getty images.

What really happened between Amber Heard and Johnny Depp may never be known.  It could turn out that Amber did make up her allegations, in which case Depp was right to refer to her as "an affront to real victims of domestic violence."  Equally, it could be proved that Depp was abusive towards her and, regardless of the "reason," that is despicable and cannot be justified.

Whatever happens, the unfortunate fact is that this case has yet again proved that as a society, we have a very long way to go before we can say we understand abuse, or report on it with anything remotely resembling sensitivity or responsibility.  And that continues to shame us all.

Why Clarkson Should Go (From a Self-Confessed Top Gear Fan)

I'm going to say it, straight from the off:  I am (or at least have been; I've waned in recent years) a fan of Top Gear.  The banter, the silliness, the cars... It appealed to me and my sense of humour.  I own several Top Gear DVDs, at least three books written by the presenters and back when Richard Hammond nearly lost his life in a jet car accident, I was frantically glued to the news footage, praying to Gods I'm not even sure I believe in, for him to pull through.  I loved the show so much that I went along to one of the Top Gear Live shows they put on every year. I even went to see the TV show being filmed and met the presenters.  It was a brilliant day and all three of the guys - Richard Hammond, James May and of course, Jeremy Clarkson, were witty, chatty and entertaining.

Not the best photo of me, I know.  But you get the point...

But in the last couple of years, my affection for the show has dwindled somewhat.  It started to get a little same-y and then I started to feel slightly uncomfortable with some of the "banter."  What had once had me chuckling away on my sofa, started to make me cringe.  

In 2012, when Top Gear went to India, Jeremy Clarkson made several provocative remarks about the country's food and history.  It was then that I started wondering whether he was crossing a line from close-to-the-knuckle humour into something bordering on xenophobia.  It wasn't as though he hadn't made similar comments before, but I suppose when you're a fan of something to the degree I was (and yes, prior to that point, I was one of those people vehemently defending Clarkson to his detractors), you simply don't want to see that it could be problematic.  But it was at that point that I started to feel less comfortable with the jokes being made.

By the time Clarkson was forced to apologise for appearing to mutter the N-word during an un-broadcast piece of footage in 2014, I was no longer regularly watching the show.  When the footage made the news, it concerned me, but didn't shock me, which is of itself, fairly indicative of Clarkson's notoriety for that kind of thing.  I presumed he'd said it deliberately, for shock-value and I thought it was a bloody stupid, offensive thing to do.  But I wasn't calling for his head to be on the block - perhaps wrongly - because I hoped that the rightful anger directed at him for his use of such a word would shock him into reigning in his behaviour and seeing that racist language is not in any way, shape or form acceptable.

Then, just months later, he proved me wrong when he used the word "slope" as a derogatory term for an Asian man (whilst describing a makeshift bridge he and his co-presenters had built across a river, he remarked to Richard Hammond: "this is a proud moment, but there's a slope on it" - clearly making a pun on the fact that an Asian man was crossing the bridge at the time) and I came to realise that Clarkson was a person with no intention of changing his ways.  Indeed, again just months later, he drove through Argentina in a vehicle with a personalised number plate that was a clear reference to the Falklands War.

It's at this point that people start saying things like "Clarkson shouldn't be sacked; this is political correctness gone mad!"

Don't get me wrong; I think we can be too politically correct in this country at times.  And I don't want to see genuine humour curtailed by it.  But it seems to me that too often, people use the term to describe a rightful reaction to a negative situation.  "So you can't have a joke at the expense of Asians anymore?  It's political correctness gone mad!"

Except, no.  It's just bloody decency.  If people are telling you not to make racial slurs, it's not "political correctness," it's humanity.  Are we really prepared to fight for our right to be racist, homophobic, sexist or otherwise bigoted?!  

Recently, Clarkson was suspended by the BBC, following an incident in a Yorkshire hotel, during which he punched a producer in the face over an argument about food.  Clarkson had supposedly returned from a day's filming at 10pm, after the hotel's restaurant kitchen had stopped serving hot food.  He demanded a steak and was instead offered a platter of either cheese or cold meats.  This wasn't adequate, so he became verbally abusive, swearing at the producer and telling him that he'd ensure he lost his job, before landing a punch.  Witnesses have expressed shock at the display, but I think I've gone past shock, where Jeremy Clarkson is concerned...

What I am shocked by, however, is the reaction of the public.  At the time of writing, over 800,000 people have signed a petition for Clarkson to keep his job.  From the arguments I've read online, their main concern seems to be that he's a "good TV presenter."  Well, yes, he is (when he's not being racist...).  But is that enough of a reason to let him off again?

This is a man who was warned over his use of racist language, only to go right ahead and use it again.  This is a man who used physical violence and verbal abuse against someone, just because he wasn't immediately offered what he wanted for dinner.  And yet more people care that he keeps his job than they care about signing a petition to stop cuts to our vital NHS mental health services...

What's more important to you?  Potentially life-saving intervention for those who truly need it, or an incredibly rich, white guy being allowed to go around saying and doing whatever he likes, because he's quite entertaining on the telly?!

What that petition says to me is that 800,000+ people think that assaulting a colleague over a trivial matter is an acceptable, non-sackable offence.  800,000+ people apparently miss the "good old days," when you could make racist jokes without consequences.  800,000+ people will think that in writing this, I'm dull, "politically correct" and trying to strangle humour.

I'm not.  I'm just saying that for many, "jokes" that are at the expense of minorities aren't funny.  And for many, assaulting someone over a missing steak sandwich is not acceptable behaviour, either.  I'm saying that whilst Jeremy Clarkson was often witty and entertaining on Top Gear, that shouldn't mean that he's given a free pass to do and say whatever he pleases.  Where do we draw the line?  Do we wait for him to assault someone else, or make further racist slurs?  And if/when that happens, do we put off the inevitable again?  What exactly are we waiting for?!

The suggestion is that Top Gear might die out completely, without Clarkson at the helm.  That would be sad, because it's capable of being a brilliant programme.  But is it so beyond the realm of possibility that it could remain popular without him?  The show could still feature banter, caravans being blown up and stars in reasonably priced cars, after all.  It's understandable that the BBC are scared of losing viewers of what is one of its most successful and widely exported TV shows ever, but are they really willing to give Jeremy Clarkson just another slap on the wrist?  Had it been the other way around and the producer had punched Clarkson, would there even be a question as to whether or not that guy lost his job?!  Of course not.  They'd be publicly stating that workplace violence is unacceptable.  Which it is.

For me, Clarkson has crossed the line for the final time.  If the BBC want to prove that they are anti-racism, anti-abuse and no longer tip-toeing around their star presenters, afraid of rightfully rebuking them, then they need to stop giving him second (and third, fourth and fifth) chances.  He's an intelligent man, with a brilliant presenting style and I was once a big fan.  But like a spoilt child, he has begun pushing the boundaries, to see just what he can get away with.  With his deliberate attempts to "shock," he's ceasing to be funny on screen.  And with this behaviour off-camera, he's surely beyond the usual excuses BBC bosses are so keen to make for him.  Let him apologise, let him promise to reign in his behaviour from now on, by all means.  But let him prove himself a man of his word on a different television show.  You can't keep giving warnings, or they become meaningless.  As a fan of Top Gear, I want to see it go back to being a funny, clever show about cars.  I don't want to keep seeing it making headlines for the same reasons, over and over again.  It's time for Clarkson to go.

I always preferred Hamster, anyway...