Turning up the Heat on Gino D'Acampo - He Said, She Said.

February 12, 2025

In any employment dispute, Linguistic Analysis can help to get to the truth. It can pinpoint areas of sensitivity hiding in plain sight and can target specific questions to these areas.

Is your firm’s strategy for dealing with costly and damaging disputes as fully informed as it could be?

Last week, The Guardian Online reported on an investigation by ITN News which found “dozens” of allegations of misconduct against Gino D’Acampo on TV shows he worked on, with his behaviour described as “unacceptable” and “distressing” by those making accusations.

In a statement responding to the allegations, Mr D’Acampo said:

"I have never been made aware of these matters previously and the allegations are firmly denied. I would not do anything that I thought would upset or distress anyone.

This is simply not in my nature. I do not recognise the version of events being put to me”. 

We note that Mr D’Acampo does not directly deny the allegations. His priority is to say that he has never been made aware of the ‘matters’ previously before adding, ‘the allegations are firmly denied.’ By whom? He doesn’t use the pronoun ‘I’ in respect to a denial.

His denial is based on future events, that which he ‘would not do’ and opposed to simply saying, ‘I did not...’ Despite saying it is not in his nature (present tense) and that he, ‘does not recognise the version of events being put to me’ does not mean they are not true.

A lack of recognition is not to deny that the events happened, rather, it can suggest they did happen, but it is the version of them which is not recognised. He allows the accusations to remain. He could have said:

· I did not... and quote the specific allegations

· I do not recognise the allegations

· I do not recognise the events

The shortest answer is the best. A simple one-line denial would have sufficed. Anything longer can speak to a need to convince, and we would question, who has a need to convince? We would caveat that longer answers can be given based on a fear of not being believed but context is key.

He did say: ‘I do not recognise the version of events being put to me’.

He therefore acknowledges the events could have happened. It is only the version of them which he does not recognise.

‘Not only have these allegations never been raised with me before, I have been repeatedly supported by executives at the highest level and was commissioned on prime-time programmes during the period in which it is now suggested I was acting inappropriately’.

He adds that he has never been made aware of these (allegations) previously. This, however, does not make them untrue. He has been ‘repeatedly supported’ by executives at the highest level... which can seek to justify his character.

There is no need to say this. It can appear to be a need to convince of the truth rather than simply convey it. It is irrelevant to the allegations. We would ask, ‘what does he mean when he says he was ‘supported?’. This does not negate the allegations. It also leaves ‘executives at the highest level’ open to question as to what they knew and supported him with.

‘I am a father, husband and have worked with well over 1,500 people on around 80 productions in my career, which I have been so proud of. I take such matters extremely seriously and the suggestion that I have acted in an improper way against is deeply upsetting.’

The above is unnecessary, can seek to convince and be a need to persuade of that which he is unable to say, namely, ‘I did not...”. It is a fact that he is a father and a husband. He has a need to say this, before adding, that he takes such matters extremely seriously and any ‘suggestion’ (which minimises the term ‘allegation’) that he acted in an improper way is deeply upsetting.

He is upset by the allegations which he is personally unable to deny.

For a reliable denial, we look for the subject to take ownership of the statement using the possessive pronoun, ‘I’ before addressing the issue in the past tense, as it happened in the past. Finally, we look for the subject to address the specific allegation. He is unable to do this. Rather, he:

·       Says he has never been made aware of the allegations

·       Says they are firmly denied without saying by whom (we cannot assume anything. If he does not say it, we cannot say it for him)

·       He would not do anything (future tense)

·       It’s not in his nature (present tense. Was it in his nature previously?)

·       He does not recognise the version of events. (If they did not happen, there is no version)

Article Reference: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/feb/07/tv-chef-gino-dacampo-denies-misconduct-claims

All blog subjects are identified, validated and written by the DDL Team. 

See www.ddlltd.com for more on Deception Detection Lab Ltd.