I want to like this play, I really do. It draws on the reality of what we have seen happen – the harassment female MPs have been subjected to, most recently Rosie Duffield forced to withdraw from hustings. It even appears to have some predicative powers, with the character of the police officer selling photographs to the press reminiscent of the ongoing election date gambling scandal.

And it is actually quite complex. Male violence against women is at its centre. It does a good job of highlighting the constant threat that women feel from men. Whether faced with a man that is truly violent, a man that has psychological issues, or any man in fact, women tend to assume they need to be on guard, that they are vulnerable, that they are at risk, that they need to cross to the other side of the road when its dark and they are by themselves And this stance can lead to unsubstantiated accusations, innocent people convicted of wrongdoing they did not commit, injustice.

To this already very rich area for exploration the play brings in the trauma of servicemen, the implicit bias against men in divorce proceedings when it comes to childcare, police corruption… Unfortunately, the play pulls all of these themes together with the subtlety of a high school production, written and acted out by a bunch of well-meaning amateurs.

First, I struggled with the ‘cut, next scene’ approach that seemed to try and emulate a film, a feeling enhanced by the lit-up permitter around the scene, evoking the outlines of a television set.

Second, I got increasingly frustrated with the humour. I understand the concept of ‘comic relief’ but this needs to be used sparingly and wisely. There were points when I was not sure whether this was mean to be a drama, with too many ‘reliefs’ or a comedy with not enough jokes.

Third, the acting was just not strong enough to make up for the shortcomings of the narrative. The lines between the two protagonists were blurted out, as if both of them wanted to pass on the hot potato. The female lead was simply not convincing. Most of the time, I was confused about the role she was in fact playing; most certainly she did not come across as scared or traumatised.

I had expected that at least one of the objectives of the play was to highlight the abuse MPs in general, but especially female MPs, are subjected to. But with the so-so writing and the so-so acting, I kept finding myself empathising with the male protagonist and not with the harassed woman. He laid bare his mental struggles, his PTSD, the love for his children, the inability to find support, and in return he got an MP who seemed to say all the right things, but appeared bored, frustrated and de facto disinterested. She did not offer that much, in acting or in words.

One could argue that the ambiguity was purposeful, that the fact we leave the theatre wondering – who in fact was the victim, or were they all victims in the end – was the intention. But somehow, I do not think it was, or was meant to be. I just think this is a weak play, not very well acted, that tackles topics that need addressing, but by a writer and by actors who are significantly more gifted.