To be shocked so many women are defending Saatchi on MN?

(192 Posts)
PoppyAmex Mon 17-Jun-13 16:53:16

Thread about a million other threads...

I'm disappointed to read the comments of so many women spouting apologist crap regarding Saatchi's heinous behaviour:

"he looks like he's checking her glands"
"we don't know what she said before he did that"
"we need to hear his side of the story"
"we don't know the background"
"she must be mortified"

YABU to be genuinely shocked with just how many women chose to align themselves with such despicable behaviour?

It makes no sense to me.

MatersMate Mon 17-Jun-13 16:55:00

Blimey, I've seen none of this, just outrage.

Oh, did see the gland checking one! confused

Really? hmm

I haven't seen or read anything even remotely defending him.

livinginwonderland Mon 17-Jun-13 16:59:38

I haven't seen any comments like that.

Fenton Mon 17-Jun-13 16:59:59

I think so many women is rather an exaggeration. It's more like the occasional random fuckwit apologist "alternative view".

Most posters are horrified, sad and worried for her.

PoppyAmex Mon 17-Jun-13 17:00:43

Well, I'm certainly not imagining them.

In fact, I got sick of addressing them in three different threads and that's what made me angry enough to brave AIBU.

PrettyKitty1986 Mon 17-Jun-13 17:01:20

Refusing to jump on the 'Oh, what a despicable woman-hating, abusive monster, he should be jailed for life' bandwagon is NOT the same as 'defending' him.

mrsjay Mon 17-Jun-13 17:04:36

"we don't know what she said before he did that"

TBF i only saw that on a thread about a husband the OP was shocked at it as everybody else was.

I havn't posted on them but I have read them and most of the posters are disgusted by him, I only saw the pictures today they are really horrific

Well said pretty kitty.

I am not defending his actions at all, but at the same time sometimes DA (or alcoholism, threatening suicide etc) it isn't really all that simple as just saying LTB

MadBusLady Mon 17-Jun-13 17:06:02

There were a few at first, but they pretty quickly died off. I don't get the impression it was loads of posters (and at least one was an obvious troll and got deleted anyway, I reported them myself).

FreudiansSlipper Mon 17-Jun-13 17:06:09

there are a few on here that will always defend the menz actions

they pop up time and time again but have only seen a few apologist remarks but one is one too many

Fenton Mon 17-Jun-13 17:06:10

Sorry poppy, I didn't mean to dismiss what you've oberserved, just that I think it's the minority that hold those views.

I think it's clear he's abusive, at what level we don't know.

bobbywash Mon 17-Jun-13 17:06:54

Series of photos is all, she doesn't look distressed from the ones I've seen. Don't know what's going on, but hey pass me a pitchfork and a burning torch and I'll join the mob ready to lynch him.

I'm sorry but everyone needs to get a grip, and except photos don't always show the interpretation given to them. Next thing someone will be citing his earlier divorce on the grounds of "unreasonable behaviour" as evidence of his wicked ways.

bobbywash Mon 17-Jun-13 17:08:07

Oh should say I'm not condoning what happened, but I don't know what did, I've seen 2 photos, and that's all.

Fenton Mon 17-Jun-13 17:08:59

This thread could be smoking them out though...

hmm

JamieandtheMagicTorch Mon 17-Jun-13 17:09:20

There aren't many. Don't exaggerate.

mrsjay Mon 17-Jun-13 17:10:11

you know sometimes people are violent to each other and fight and argue and then they say things like the OP mentioned and it comes across as defending abuse FWIW I think violence is violence and it is never ever right , just putting that across as some people do live their life figting with each other and some couples see it as normal and a fiery relationship

bobbywash Mon 17-Jun-13 17:10:18

aargh accept not except, my grammar is failing

KatyDid02 Mon 17-Jun-13 17:12:28

I guess I could have been seen to be defending him as I did say that she must have been mortified about the pictures. I was coming at it from the point of view of somebody who was in a DV relationship and have been on the receiving end of the same thing as Nigella in the photos and know full well that I would not have wanted anybody to see pictures.

If that was defending him then so be it, it certainly wasn't my intention.

MadBusLady Mon 17-Jun-13 17:15:22

Oddly enough, the photos aren't particularly important, bobby (though you clearly can't have seen them all if you think she doesn't look distressed; even Saatchi's own statement concedes that the photos look "horrific".)

If you have any knowledge of the press and British libel law, you will know there is no way a newspaper would openly suggest that a billionaire was violent towards his wife who was in distress unless they were very, very sure that was basically what had happened. If there was a sniff of doubt about it, the paper would get sued to oblivion. The giveaway is not the photos, the giveaway is that the paper's legal team okayed the story.

Sheshelob Mon 17-Jun-13 17:16:55

It is well documented in numerous biographies that CS has a violent temper. WELL documented.

Until now it has been considered a "quirk".

hmm

MatersMate Mon 17-Jun-13 17:17:16

There are a series of photos that clearly show she is distressed bobby

Get a grip?? What could possibly excuse a man putting his hands around his wifes throat?

soundevenfruity Mon 17-Jun-13 17:21:25

It might be a fear thing: thinking that DV doesn't happen to "normal women", that there must be something in her, in what they were discussing that provoked it. It's profoundly scary to think that anybody can find themselves in a situation where they are a victim.

I find his justification quite revealing. Those are HER children. He can have an opinion about how she chooses to bring them up and he can even share it with her but he can not possibly have a row about his step children. It's none of his business.

Saatchi's own statement (i.e. the best possible construction that could possibly be put on the events) is that in the course of an "intense debate" he "held her neck repeatedly" to "emphasise a point". You know, as you do...

His actions are indefensible.

dufflefluffle Mon 17-Jun-13 17:28:22

* What could possibly excuse a man putting his hands around his wifes throat?*
Yes it does look terrible but it did cross my mind when I saw the photo what if he was telling her a story say like this: "yes! he put his hands around his throat like this...really! and then the next thing....."
I tend to speak while demonstrating with my hands so a snap shot of my conversations might be fairly incriminating too.

WildlingPrincess Mon 17-Jun-13 17:28:55

I didn't see any?

PoppyAmex Mon 17-Jun-13 17:30:19

Yes Duffle, he was telling her a story.

A story that made her cry.

MadBusLady Mon 17-Jun-13 17:32:41

Duffle, unfortunately for that theory he has admitted that holding her neck repeatedly during an argument to emphasise his point was exactly what he was doing.

BIWI Mon 17-Jun-13 17:32:56

Have you seen the rest of the photos, duffle? Where she is clearly crying and upset? Doesn't look like he was just 'telling her a story' to me hmm

PrettyKitty1986 Mon 17-Jun-13 17:33:58

Oh for gods sake.

I end up crying every time df and I argue. It's mainly because that is how my frustration and anger comes out. I curse myself for it every time.

Most arguments with df I'll readily concede are started/accelerated by me. Yet i still cry...it's not a sign that df is abusing me hmm

ARealDame Mon 17-Jun-13 17:34:06

What I've been shocked about is how people who have different views, or just thoughts or curiosity on it all, have been verbally attacked and bullied and called c**ts (irony). As if a kind of liberal Hang 'em and Flog 'em brigade was mobilised into action, just weird and verging on hysterical. I know the pictures were shocking and strange, but people are entitled to their own genuine thoughts and opinions (I'm not talking about trolls) without being personally attacked here.

mrsjay Mon 17-Jun-13 17:34:31

A story that made tears fall down her face

bobbywash Mon 17-Jun-13 17:35:04

As I say only going on what I've seen which is two photos. I do think that sometimes on MN people are to quick to rush to judgement. Until she gives her version, I think it's bad but I would like to get the complete picture before having him publicly flogged

DV of any sort should not be tolerated and I'm not condoning CS behaviour, but there is an awful lot of "he's evil" when no one really knows what happened. I will readily accept that there must be more photos that the two I saw, and from what I've read they will put it in a different perspective.

SorryMyLollipop Mon 17-Jun-13 17:37:21

What someone else said - he admitted that he was holding her neck, during a disagreement, whilst repeatedly making a point. Seriously, thats his excuse? Does he actually think that is ok?

Hideous behaviour.

If anyone did that to me I would be very upset and would feel very intimidated.

ARealDame Mon 17-Jun-13 17:37:59

There was definitely a 'string him up' mentality that I found pretty unpleasant actually, talk about judge and jury. I mean even the police asked for more information.

dufflefluffle Mon 17-Jun-13 17:39:20

No, I didn't see any other than the original one posted on MN. I believe they are awful and wouldn't like to see her distressed. I'll take your word for it. My point was only that if one has seen only the first flagged picture there could have other intrepretations.

ApocalypseThen Mon 17-Jun-13 17:50:33

It's very concerning that so many people are open to the idea that there's any reasonable explanation for putting your hands around another person's throat.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Mon 17-Jun-13 17:53:50

Apocalypse

I don't think there are that many. The ones there are haven't read all the stuff or seen all the pictures. They haven't read his statement

PrettyKitty, no, obviously the fact that you cry during an argument when you are feeling frustrated and angry isn't a sign you're being abused. It's a sign that you are feeling frustrated and angry. Yet Saatchi claims that their argument was "playful" rather than angry. Do you normally cry when you and your df are being playful?

The sign that Nigella is being abused (hmm) is that her husband thinks it is perfectly fine to repeatedly put his hand around her throat to "emphasise a point". The fact that she's crying merely undermines his argument that it's "playful".

BlueberryHill Mon 17-Jun-13 17:55:17

Madbuslady makes a really good point.

In these situations there could be an alternative view and until the police investigation has concluded no one knows for sure. However, there is also a view that in most instances this looks very intimidating and aggressive behaviour and would take a lot of explaining away.

If my DH put his hands around my neck several times whilst making a point in an argument I would be very intimidated, shaken and reconsidering my relationship. He never has, he never would.

Bogeyface Mon 17-Jun-13 17:58:42

I wonder how he would feel if she playfully took a baseball bat to his bollocks, you know, just to emphasise a point that he is a nasty tempered bully

mercibucket Mon 17-Jun-13 17:59:02

i would think anyone who believed a photo to show the whole truth would be pretty naive
i wouldnt rely on a photo plus tabloid story for anything

the statement by saatchi, however, is damning.

ghayes Mon 17-Jun-13 18:00:43

It looks bad but a still picture can never be used to condemn someone unreservedly. There are plenty of famous photographs that are misleading as to what actually happened.

I'm shocked too, poppy.

ApocalypseThen Mon 17-Jun-13 18:06:23

I don't think there are that many. The ones there are haven't read all the stuff or seen all the pictures. They haven't read his statement

I don't think any of that matters. Some people think there's probably a valid explanation as to why you'd put your hands around another person's throat other than being violent, abusive and controlling. The fact that they'd have to read statements or look at more photos to accept that there just isn't is worrying.

yamsareyammy Mon 17-Jun-13 18:06:50

From what I have seen, it did happen on the first original thread. And it was before a lot of posters had either seen the pictures, or had not read any background at all to them.
Discarding those and a troll, there may have been a couple of posters left?

yamsareyammy Mon 17-Jun-13 18:07:31

Oh, and this is my 4th thread on the subject!

FobblyWoof Mon 17-Jun-13 18:17:04

Ok, the only possible reason for him having his hand across/round/grabbing (whatever you want to call it) her throat would be if he was retelling a story about how someone had their hands around someone's throat. That was not the case here, even Saatchi himself has said as much, never mind that the photos make it pretty obvious that they are arguing so he couldn't have even used the example above if he'd tried.

I also frequently cry when me and DP argue (mainly through frustration) but my DP has never laid a fuckng finger on me, never mind had his hand on my throat.

Even if Nigella didn't look terrified (which anyone with eyes can see that she does), even if she looked pissed off instead, it doesn't make having your hands on someone's throat acceptable.

And the 'well, you don't know what she said before that' brigade- do fuck off hmm . It is irrelevant what was said before then. There is nothing, absolutely nothing (apart from an immediate threat to my child's life) that would ever make me grab someone's throat. Ever. Not DP's, not a strangers. There is not a scenario (again apart from an immediate threat to my child's life) where I would consider this an appropriate thing to do. Anyone who does is just awful. I don't give a fuck if you're a man or a woman- that is not on.

The photos show Saatchi to be a violent cunt and his statement only serves to prove this with shitty and far fetched excuses. First it's a playful tiff then it's an intense debate. It can be one or the other, not both.

yamsareyammy Mon 17-Jun-13 18:23:17

Absolutely Fobbly.

spondulix Mon 17-Jun-13 18:25:29

In the context of an argument (which is what Saatchi have admitted it was) putting your hands around someone's throat is intimidating and violent. I really don't see how it can be construed as otherwise.

PoppyAmex Mon 17-Jun-13 18:27:24

"What I've been shocked about is how people who have different views, or just thoughts or curiosity on it all, have been verbally attacked and bullied and called c**ts (irony). As if a kind of liberal Hang 'em and Flog 'em brigade was mobilised into action, just weird and verging on hysterical."

Yes, those pesky women and their hysterical reactions when confronted with violence. Have they learned nothing throughout the centuries? <tut>

FutTheShuckUp Mon 17-Jun-13 18:28:48

PrettyKitty1986- the fifties called and want their attitude back.
Im also sure it wouldn't be rape if he forced himself on her as they are married and it's mans right.. FFS bangs head on keyboard

LEMisdisappointed Mon 17-Jun-13 18:30:55

What totally and utterly baffles me about the whole thing is that he did this in a public place. Does he think he is totally above rebuke?

I'm not going to say the law because i don't know if he broke the law - genuinely, i do not know if that would be considered assault? I think it should but technically?

Hopefully he has destroyed his reputation, but in all honesty, does he even care? He has so much money i daresay he can buy a new set of friends sycophants

PoppyAmex Mon 17-Jun-13 18:31:26

Katy you're right, that wasn't defending him.

But my point is the narrative should be about him and his actions, not her.

If our first reaction is "I'd be mortified if I was her", the message is instantly about her. You wouldn't say the same to a rape victim, so why should we about a victim of DV?

TheFallenNinja Mon 17-Jun-13 18:37:09

Whatever the reasons for this, it will turn into a PR excercise.

LEMisdisappointed Mon 17-Jun-13 18:42:19

But poppy, the fact remains that she probably is mortified, just as a rape victim would be mortified. They shouldn't be because it is clearly not them at fault, but they will still be mortified. I would be. I daresay she is also berating herself for not keeping him appeased and that SHE has brought all of this upon herself. She will be feeling all of those things - and the sad thing is, it will probably do more damage to her career that it will his. I don't think it is defending him and putting the blame onto her by saying she would be mortified.

Does anyone know if he has broken the law?

Oblomov Mon 17-Jun-13 18:45:13

At first there was just one picture.
People hung, and quartered him, before they even knew what had happened.
Init,ally based on ONE photo, it looked bad. But, although unlikely, it could have been that he was showing her... "then my bil did this , (grabbed her ropund neck,), to show to her what had happened to my siste/freind/niece etc.... Yes, its unlikely, but we didn't KNOW.

Then more photos were released.
Then came his statement.
Both of these made it worse, becasue it SEEMS that peoples initial fears were being confirmed.
I am not condoning him, or DV.
But I felt people were too quick to cricify him.

Since, then it transpires, that there is more evidence, to SUGGEST, that the man is totally abusive. But too many people were too quick to jump.

ARealDame Mon 17-Jun-13 18:48:19

It just sounded like a lynch mob to me. Plus the attitude that people who were shocked/confused but even breathed to wonder what it all meant, or if it was true, or why had this happened could probably go to the scaffold too. Strangely bullying and mob mentality whilst claiming the higher moral ground hmm. By the way I didn't see anyone defend Saatchi (as if anyone would) as OP said, just some not so quick to string him up judge-and-jury.

ApocalypseThen Mon 17-Jun-13 18:50:12

No you're right. Strangling someone can be a bit of a jape, so it's right to reserve judgement until its proven that the strangling isn't all just for larfs.

SoniaGluck Mon 17-Jun-13 18:50:39

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, Oblomov but I read the first reports of this late on Saturday night and there was a series of photos, not just one.

I based my conclusions on all of them, not just one.

ClaireDeTamble Mon 17-Jun-13 18:52:38

If our first reaction is "I'd be mortified if I was her", the message is instantly about her. You wouldn't say the same to a rape victim, so why should we about a victim of DV?

Because maybe some people's first reaction is to empathise with the victim rather than condemn the attacker?

If someone told me they were raped, my first reaction would be to focus on them and their feelings, to offer sympathy and empathy. My second reaction would be to want to get the bastard.

In all the cocophony of noise about what an utter bastard Saatchi is, how that poor woman must be feeling is being lost.

Not only has her abusive relationship been exposed to the world, but she has had to flee her home with her teenage children to try and avoid the madness that such a public exposure of the incident has created.

Yes, she probably is feeling mortified and embrarrased - she shouldn't have to, but it is perfectly understandable. She also probably feeling very hurt, scared and alone right now. Making it about her and offering empathy and support rather giving him even more publicity (and let's face it - ultimately, his reputation won't be particularly harmed by any of this if his already hideous reputation is anything to go by) is not a bad thing in my opinion.

MummyAbroad Mon 17-Jun-13 19:01:03

I thought the series of photos plus the tabloid story explaining what happened made it clear what went on. I know tabloids are not trustworthy, but they are opening themselves up to libel by citing his outright abuse, a fact which to me, gives the story a lot of credit.

I dont see that there has been a lynch mob, quick to harass anyone who didnt condemn him, but more that many people, quite rightly, want to counter a very widespread culture of silence around the taboo of DV. Of course we would all love for this to have been an innocent mistake, and its much more convenient for everyone if we "give him the benefit of the doubt" because then we dont have to do anything or face a very ugly truth, which is that DV is everywhere and more should be done to stop it.

ImakeBADdecisions Mon 17-Jun-13 19:02:05

Claire, the point is that to focus on CS is to focus on the fact that what he did was wrong, that nothing NL could have done would excuse abusive behaviour. So whatever they were arguing about it is not acceptable to do xyz.

I have split up with an abusive husband recently. I have read accounts of other women who have and we don't all feel the same things. No-one but the woman herself knows what she feels. Hopefully she will be able to talk to friends and family about it, so doesn't need the public to speculate on her feelings. We do, however, as a society need to condemn domestic abuse. Which is why many people focus on discussing him.

MadBusLady Mon 17-Jun-13 19:03:45

I think those saying that many people "jumped" to the correct conclusion may have to consider the possibility that those people's reasoning was just better than theirs.

I could "jump" to the conclusion that this laptop is not going to turn into a kitten in five minutes, and technically yes, we will have to wait till the five minutes is up before "evidence" clinches this point. I am, nonetheless, quietly confident.

mercibucket Mon 17-Jun-13 19:05:33

where were the photos, Sonia?

i cant say i have looked at more than one, and it wasnt on a reputable website, it was a tabloid. it didnt seem to have a series of images to peruse and build my righteous indignation. i dont see why anyone saying something along the lines of 'could be faked/doctored/have innocent explanation' are unreasonable in the initial day/s, funnily enough, not all of us believe everything we read/see to be true without corroborating evidence, particularly if first reported in a tabloid

I saw the pictures on Saturday night too. First one, then the series. It reminded me of some pictures I'd see a few months ago - where he put his hand over mouth. I have no problem with leaping to the conclusion based on that Mr Saatchi is in fact an absusive twat. I have no time at all for anybody who wants to try and defend this man.

There are pictures of him with his HAND around his wife's THROAT. She is clearly upset. He says it's a tiff. Well you know what I've been married for 16 years and I've had planty of tiffs. NEVER involving hands round throats.

Anybody who is reading these threads and is thinking 'oooh well maybe she'd done...' wake up people! HIS HAND AROUND HER THROAT! It's NEVER ok. IT's NEVER reasonable. It's ALWAYS scary and abusive. I have three daughters and a sister and a mother and aunts and sisters in law and nieces and just today a goddaughter. None of those women will ever be treated like that if I know about and have breath on my body to prevent it. There is no other side to this.

MummyAbroad Mon 17-Jun-13 19:07:49
mercibucket Mon 17-Jun-13 19:08:35

it is sometimes worth a newspaper's while to risk being sued as they still make more money from the increase in sales

a general point, but why i would not automatically think 'oh if it was false, they'd get sued for libel, so it must be true'

catgirl1976 Mon 17-Jun-13 19:09:17

I can only find a picture where he has his hand across her mouth - I haven't seen the ones where he is holding her neck

catgirl1976 Mon 17-Jun-13 19:10:07

Ag - just clicked on Mummyabroads link

That looks grim - not lighthearted at all

JamieandtheMagicTorch Mon 17-Jun-13 19:12:06

PrettyKitty

It isn't just the crying. It's the pictures, plus what he has said.

FriskyHenderson Mon 17-Jun-13 19:13:40

I think the fact he is saying 'yeah it looks bad but I needed to put my hands around her neck repeatedly until she listened. My bad' makes it worse - how on earth can he think that's normal?

JamieandtheMagicTorch Mon 17-Jun-13 19:16:14

LEM

I think he probably does think he is above rebuke. History is littered with authoritarian/ "artistic"/ "passionate"/ powerful/ psychopathic people who
get away with it and think they always will

SoniaGluck Mon 17-Jun-13 19:19:19

merci I honestly can't remember, now. Someone posted a link on Twitter - it was probably a tabloid site.

MatersMate Mon 17-Jun-13 19:19:24

That's the scvariest thing, if this is how he loses control in public what the hell does he do to her at home? sad

Hissy Mon 17-Jun-13 19:24:28

The fact that her face isn't shocked, that there are no defensive moves shows me that this is a regular thing for him.

Can Mumsnet towers have a word and ask her on here? I want to give her a great big hug and tell her that she'll be OK.

Hissy Mon 17-Jun-13 19:25:38

That occurred to me too MatersMate sad

Hissy Mon 17-Jun-13 19:26:36

Oh, and I hear she left the home... if it were all a 'jape', she'd not leave, would she?

The really scary thing is that this is just one abusive twat we have pictures of. If two women a week are murdered by their partners or ex-partners then there's a hell of a lot more of this out there - unpictured, no media storm, no help.

squoosh Mon 17-Jun-13 19:29:50

I think it speaks volumes about this situation that Charles Saatchi has released a (damning) statement and Nigella Lawson has remained very silent.

Surely if the photos were misrepresentative Nigella would have raced to defend him? But no, she's disappeared with her children.

MummyAbroad Mon 17-Jun-13 19:30:15

a general point, but why i would not automatically think 'oh if it was false, they'd get sued for libel, so it must be true'

there is not much difference in the opposite thought of "its a tabloid, so every story in it must be false"

(IMO) the point of this thread is that different people are seeing different things in this photo and story (bit like a rorschach inkblot test) Speaking for myself, having experience something similar to what happened to Nigella, I immediately saw DV. I think its worth pointing out to those who didnt want to see DV, that this is a cultural phenomenon that should be countered. We shouldnt try so hard to explain it away, or assume that its not happening when its right in front of us.

ClaireDeTamble Mon 17-Jun-13 19:30:50

Imake : Claire, the point is that to focus on CS is to focus on the fact that what he did was wrong, that nothing NL could have done would excuse abusive behaviour. So whatever they were arguing about it is not acceptable to do xyz.

That's fine - but it doesn't preclude someone's first reaction to be empathy for Nigella does it?

And it is also possible to show her empathy and condemn him at the same time but to say it is all about him and his actions as the OP has and to focus only on him as you imply should be the case serves only to make her invisible.

One of the problems with DV is that the victims often are invisible due to the shame and embarrasment that they feel (even though they shouldn't) so people claiming it should all be about him and his actions actually leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth because it suggests that her and her feelings aren't as important.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Mon 17-Jun-13 19:31:51

Mummy

I agree. The great weight of society denies and denies. It needs to be slapped in the chops by thins

JamieandtheMagicTorch Mon 17-Jun-13 19:32:25

this, not thins

Back2Two Mon 17-Jun-13 19:37:03

This says enough

Many of us already knew a little background and had seen this picture for example in 2012.

It wasn't so much jumping to conclusions as seeing practically irrefutable evidence and responding accordingly.

mercibucket Mon 17-Jun-13 19:41:12

well, i wouldnt go so far as to say every story in a tabloid is false, but most of the stories involving celebs? wouldnt surprise me. the whole sleb culture is built on falsehood, drama and image, and celebs and the media work together to keep it that way. make ups, break ups, a lot of that is just for show.

it is not, therefore, surprising, if people show initial scepticism over this.

i am defending people's right not to rush to judge on the basis of one tabloid article. i am certainly not defending his actions

mercibucket Mon 17-Jun-13 19:45:31

Back2Two, not everyone spends any time at all reading about what people get up to in their private life. i am sadly one of those who did not see a photo of nigella in 2012, altho i did see the burkini photo so am not totally living in a world of celebrity isolation

Back2Two Mon 17-Jun-13 19:48:00

What?
Um, we'll I didn't see the burkini photo so that makes our total celebrity private life of nigella exactly equal.

MummyAbroad Mon 17-Jun-13 19:55:09

I learned about all this from this MN thread with links on the first page to 3 different tabloid papers reporting the story.

MummyAbroad Mon 17-Jun-13 20:04:11

Sorry, OP, just realised I havent really addressed you!

YANBU at all. The shocking thing about people defending Saatchi or, as I see it, trying very hard not to "see" the DV is that it is indicative of one of the greatest problems in our society, namely that DV is surrounded by a culture of silence. We should break that silence more often, we should remind women that they will be believed, they will be helped, attackers will be named and shamed and brought to justice, and we are not all blind to what is going on all around us.

PoppyAmex Mon 17-Jun-13 20:16:10

Claire you're speaking about empathy towards the victim and I totally agree with you, but I can't imagine how telling the victim of a crime "I'd be mortified if I were you" is supportive or denotes any empathy.

In fact, I find it exceedingly inappropriate and abhorrent.

Hopefully Nigella will find a support network of loved ones and/or professionals who can help her heal, but my point remains the same; in the context of that attack the onus is on him and solely on him.

Talking about her "shame" and "mortification" is a slippery slope.

Imake said it very eloquently:

"I have split up with an abusive husband recently. I have read accounts of other women who have and we don't all feel the same things. No-one but the woman herself knows what she feels. Hopefully she will be able to talk to friends and family about it, so doesn't need the public to speculate on her feelings. We do, however, as a society need to condemn domestic abuse. Which is why many people focus on discussing him."

onefewernow Mon 17-Jun-13 20:23:36

I noticed in his statement that he said that he "told" her to take the children ...etc.

Interesting phrase.

LEMisdisappointed Mon 17-Jun-13 20:27:17

Mastermate The thing that struck me, is that he didn't look like he had lost control at all - it all looked very calculated sad

MissStrawberry Mon 17-Jun-13 20:33:01

YANBU to be shocked if indeed what you say is happening, is.

I have seen no defending, just people putting suggestions as to what might be happening as the reality is so horrifying and upsetting to contemplate.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Mon 17-Jun-13 20:37:07

LEM

Yes, like he is taking control.

That Jim Crace piece in the Guardian (The Digested Read) is very revealing. Seems some people know him for what he is

exoticfruits Mon 17-Jun-13 20:44:10

There is no defence- there is no excuse that makes it acceptable.

MummyAbroad Mon 17-Jun-13 20:50:20

LEMisdisappointed yes, abusers dont lose their temper, they use their temper.

Notmadeofrib Mon 17-Jun-13 20:51:10

The picture where he is pulling her nose is quite frankly, vile.

It is astonishing that people see those photos and don't see the easy casual violence that CS exhibits to NL and the fear on her face. There are other people in those photos watching the abuse - it wasn't silent, he was apparently shouting at her. She was crying and trying to placate him after he had placed his hands round her neck. How much more evidence of violence is needed?

However if anyone needed any more evidence of his culpability, he has admitted in his statement that it happened during an argument and that he did it to "emphasise" a point -although what kind of point (apart from "do what I say or I will hurt you" do you think he was trying to make?

Scarily for NL he must feel absolutely untouchable if he can do this in a public place, I would be extraordinarily surprised if this was the first time.

As others have said statement released by CS is absolutely hideous - particularly the part about having "told her" to take the children. That part absolutely screams control.

Amandaclarke Mon 17-Jun-13 21:03:12

Bobby wash and anyone else who hasn't bothered ddoing any research -do yourself and us a favour and look at ALL the photos before opining - it would save a lot of time and frustration of those that actually care about domestic violence.

How ANYONE could except, accept, condone, mitigate this is unbelievable.

Poor woman sad

Amandaclarke Mon 17-Jun-13 21:08:13

Shame, embarrassment, mortification? Are some of these posters real? I would hazard a guess that there is a big " Clean up " team on this which reaches far and wide.....

mrsjay Mon 17-Jun-13 21:09:08

The thing that struck me, is that he didn't look like he had lost control at all - it all looked very calculated

I noticed that too he looks a self absorbed controlling man who is used to people listening to him and doing what he wants Nigella p may not be bowing down and listening to him so he did this and the hand over the mouth picture He really thinks what he did was ok he will never change and I hope Nigella comes to her senses and doesnt take the children back anywhere near him Children also have the affects of domestic violence

ClaireDeTamble Mon 17-Jun-13 21:13:19

Poppy you're speaking about empathy towards the victim and I totally agree with you, but I can't imagine how telling the victim of a crime "I'd be mortified if I were you" is supportive or denotes any empathy.

There is a huge difference between "I'd be mortified if I were you" said in a jovial your husbands been a bit of a dick kind of way and "I'd be mortified if I were her" because someone has been through DV themselves and understands the embarrassment and shame that comes with it (no matter how unjustified those feelings are) or if they haven't been through it themselves can understand why the victim may feel that way. One is minimising, the other is showing a level of understanding about how the victim may be feeling which tells them that they are not alone, that they are not weird or strange for feeling that way, that it is perfectly normal.

You are right, in the context of the attack the onus very much is on him. It is all about the attacker and the voice of the victim is silenced.

Yes, every victim of DV feels differently about their situation but it is victims of DV that have said that she must be mortified because that is how they felt and their experiences weren't being played out in public. Maybe they are wrong and Nigella doesn't feel that way at all, maybe they are right - we can't possibly know but their motivation comes from support and empathy having been through the situation themselves.

Yet in your OP, you have managed to lump those people in with all of the others that are defending CS, not just silencing and minimising their experience, but suggesting that by feeling that way, it was somehow defensive of an abuser.

MarthasHarbour Mon 17-Jun-13 21:13:39

I thought his statement was sickening, especially the bit about 'telling' her to take the children, and the mitigation, basically saying 'its not what it looks like guv'

The pictures are so upsetting, particularly the last one on the 'slideshow' where she looks so pained.

Nigella if you are a MNer, have a big woolly hug from me x

KatyDid02 Mon 17-Jun-13 21:29:41

Poppy

We shouldn't. I wouldn't say it to a victim of DV, but I do feel it with regard to myself- I would be mortified.

Dahlen Mon 17-Jun-13 21:39:54

I've seen enough of life to know that things are rarely what they seem, especially when presented by the gutter press.

For me, it's CS's own 'explanation' of what happened that has made him appear very guilty. The combination of minimisation and denial is very, very typical of abusers.

HibiscusIsland Mon 17-Jun-13 22:14:23

Questioning whether all is as it seems in a tabloid photo is NOT the same as being an apologist for abusive behaviour! You'd have to be pretty gullible to take every photo and accompanying article in a tabloid at face value, so there was nothing wrong with people questioning what was happening when the article was first printed.

HibiscusIsland Mon 17-Jun-13 22:16:04

PS. I agree that CS's explanation has made him appear guilty

MummyAbroad Mon 17-Jun-13 22:25:11

Is it because people are skeptical of what they read in tabloids or is it also that D.V. is unpalatable and some people want to rationalise it away?

JamieandtheMagicTorch Mon 17-Jun-13 22:26:36

Brief report on BBC 10 o'clock news just now. The pics look even worse on the screen

ghayes Mon 17-Jun-13 22:31:08

I don't see why this is on the news.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Mon 17-Jun-13 22:33:04

Don't you

MummyAbroad Mon 17-Jun-13 22:34:40

Domestic violence should be kept hidden at home should it? hmm

ghayes Mon 17-Jun-13 22:41:13

No but its only on the news because they are celebrities.

yamsareyammy Mon 17-Jun-13 22:47:26

Are you the news police?
What if it helps others leave their violent partners?

thebody Mon 17-Jun-13 22:50:52

Nigella looks in pain and both petrified and pleading.

Very very upsetting pictures. There's also one of him pinching her nose.

BegoniaBampot Mon 17-Jun-13 23:26:06

Tbh, if I had only looked at certain photos in isolation with no commentary or eye witness accounts, I wouldn't have been able to tell if they were aggressive or sexual. You can't really see how much pressure is being applied. Think this is why some people can initially be cynical, especially given how the press can twist things and don't want to join a lynch mob until much more information is given.

BIWI Tue 18-Jun-13 00:20:25

Latest news - the police have cautioned him.

Bogeyface Tue 18-Jun-13 00:25:15

In other words she wont give a statement and they dont have enough evidence for the CPS to prosecute but his lawyers advised him to take the caution because from a PR point of view he needs to be seen as having his wrist slapped.

She wont leave him, nothing will change.

Morloth Tue 18-Jun-13 01:49:51

It is a very aggressive action to put your hands on someone's throat.

Is it a very vulnerable place for a human, which is why one of our defensive actions is to protect it and lower your head forward.

Horrible intimidating and violent to do that.

I can't think of any excuse for such behaviour. None at all.

I hope she is OK. There should be no pressure on her to do anything, she hasn't done anything wrong.

People should fuck off with their nasty comments about her in this situation.

Mimishimi Tue 18-Jun-13 01:58:15

At first he used only his left hand, then both. At one stage he tweaked her nose then pushed both hands in her face. Twice Nigella jerked her head backwards as if in fear.

I did not defend him at all in the other AIBU thread where the OP's husband made some disturbing comments but reading the above made me wonder if Saatchi has been taking martial art classes and showed her a move? When my husband did tae kwondo ( he has a black belt) there was a move exactly like that and he showed me to demonstrate how I should defend myself if someone came at me front-on. Of course, I was not terrified nor did we argue afterwards but it's possible that Nigella, being conscious that they are in the public eye, was furious about it then they had the tiff which made her cry.

Well, I did wonder all that until I read his statement that it was just a playful tiff where he was trying to emphasise a point during an intensw debate and, sadly, I think he's just more likelh to be your garden-variety abuser. sad. Something about Nigella makes me want to give her a big hug and tell her everything will be alright too - she looks a lot like a cousin of mine.

Lazyjaney Tue 18-Jun-13 02:00:29

IMO basing any views on what the tabloids report is ridiculous - but the CS "statement" is the first piece of real news that indicates what may - may - be going on.

piprabbit Tue 18-Jun-13 02:01:51

At least he can no longer deny that what he did was an assault - accepting the caution means he also admits his guilt.

IsThisAGoodIdea Tue 18-Jun-13 02:23:54

I doubt this is new. She has been quoted as saying he is " an exploder". She obviously accepts who is he. She's a woman of independent means and they do not have children together. She could leave if she wanted to. She obviously doesn't want to.

I think the pictures are very depressing. She looks so sad. I have read she had a violent mother and she learned not to cry in front of her. Her mother would beat her children till her hands hurt. Nigella lost a sister and a husband to cancer. The gloss is never all it seems and I feel hugely sorry for her.

But...whatever we think, she has chosen this man and is obviously (incomprehensibly) committed to a life with him, despite his failings. At that point, what can you say? Her life, her choice.

AdoraBell Tue 18-Jun-13 02:34:30

I have to admit that I haven't seen those comments OP. Only because I can't read the threads, but I have posted on 1 or 2, having done that I can now feel my ex's hands around my throat even though I haven't seen him for over 25 years. I can assure you he was not checking my glands.

Whoever came up with that comment should take a good look at their DDs, sisters, DM, cousins, nieces and other girls/women they know because anyone of them could be killed by something who was probably only checking her glands.

I will say that I am proud of my OH who - despite currently being lost up his own arse- has told DDs why what happened is wrong and that there is never a reason to accept it and they should return home if their future partners display any behavior that makes them afraid and not to wait for violence to occur.

merrymouse Tue 18-Jun-13 08:34:11

I think his justification is almost as bad as the act itself. No amount of quirkiness, eccentricity or money can justify putting your hand on somebody's throat to enforce your point of view. The act is just plain nasty.

I suspect there is a certain amount of money that makes this kind of relationship more attractive. However, how many women are reading what saatchi said and wondering whether their own partner's abusive behaviour is 'just having a tiff'.

mignonette Tue 18-Jun-13 08:40:13

There is now a dialogue about violence towards loved ones by people who would normally maybe not consider it.

DD told me all the younger staff members are talking of nothing else at work. And that is a very good thing. Universal condemnation of both people who attack their loved ones and also, thank goodness, anger at the excusers and apologists of these people. DD also said that every man she works alongside has expressed nothing but shock and distress at these photographs. Not one of them tried to explain it away.

And that is a hallmark of DV (from both personal and professional perspectives). We try to explain it away....

Pagwatch Tue 18-Jun-13 08:41:05

Well he has admitted it now hasn't he, so the mental gymnastics being sed by some to explain what was pretty obviously just him grabbing her throat can end.

His justification is exposed for the ludicrous lie it was....

..well yes when we are having a tiff it is helpful to me if my husband repeatedly grabs me around the throat so I can more easily understand the point he is making. It's playful. Sometimes I just cry because I am grateful for the clarity

Jeez.

PoppyAmex Tue 18-Jun-13 08:54:39

"But...whatever we think, she has chosen this man and is obviously (incomprehensibly) committed to a life with him, despite his failings. At that point, what can you say? Her life, her choice."

IsThisaGoodIdea what can we say? We can say it's a crime to assault people and condemn the behaviour in the strongest possible terms.

BIWI Tue 18-Jun-13 08:56:09

I realise that people are trying to make the point that nothing can be taken at face value when it's in the paper.

This actually reflects the lack of trust that we have in journalists/journalism these days. Especially the red tops.

But the desire, it seems to me to be, to try and explain away these images, by other women, has really been quite shocking.

What happened to "I believe you"? Or is domestic violence deemed different from rape?

The tortuous attempts to explain away what is a very aggressive and intimidating gesture/move by Charles Saatchi are truly horrible. If those pictures alone weren't enough, the ones of Nigella very obviously upset and tears should have made it very plain that she wasn't happy about what he had been doing.

To only accept that there was indeed something 'wrong' after Saatchi released his press statement indicates just difficult it is for victims of domestic violence to be believed. And Nigella's situation wasn't believed despite photographic evidence.

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

MarshaBrady Tue 18-Jun-13 08:57:26

Assault. That's what it was, no spin and minimisation. It's good we finally have the right word.

merrymouse Tue 18-Jun-13 09:13:10

Isn't there also a difficulty, though, in saying 'I don't believe you' to people who try to minimise or brush off these kind of actions?

vintagecakeisstillnice Tue 18-Jun-13 09:15:37

I find it very hard to even read some of the comments been made and it makes it very clear that the dynamics of DV/DA are still very poorly understood.

Having money etc may make the logistics easier, but that doesn’t account for the years of erosion of self-esteem.

Pennyacrossthehall Tue 18-Jun-13 09:18:09

In today's news: he has "accepted a caution" for this incident.

I suggest that you don't roll over immediately and accept a caution for something that you didn't do. Twunt.

PoppyAmex Tue 18-Jun-13 09:24:49

"To only accept that there was indeed something 'wrong' after Saatchi released his press statement indicates just difficult it is for victims of domestic violence to be believed. And Nigella's situation wasn't believed despite photographic evidence."

BIWI this is such a very important point.

It's only too easy to imagine that a woman in the throws of domestic violence would think "if they doubt her after those pictures, why would they believe me?"

MadBusLady Tue 18-Jun-13 09:25:04

I realise that people are trying to make the point that nothing can be taken at face value when it's in the paper.

The trouble is that even that point is being massively over-simplified here. The key to reading media critically is to cultivate a bullshit radar, look for the slant, consider context. Not just take a universal cutesy "Look wot a rugged freethinker I am in not believing a word of this" stance to everything that gets written.

FreudiansSlipper Tue 18-Jun-13 09:28:46

I agree BIWI

i felt some were once again defending the menz rather than looking situation that was very obvious

shame on you

this has highlighted that many have little understanding of dv relationships and hopefully some will try to be more understanding. it also shows that it can happen to anyone and happens in all walks of life and what people present in public (not just those in the public eye) is sometimes far from the truth

BIWI Tue 18-Jun-13 09:32:34

Absolutely, MadBusLady. And in the current climate, post-Leveson, no paper would be prepared to run that kind of article without knowing absolutely that what they were saying could be backed up. Indeed, the fact that a photographer must have been briefed to be present to take those photos speaks volumes. I doubt very much that a photographer just happened to be there at that time.

Pennyacrossthehall Tue 18-Jun-13 09:41:18

Sorry BIWI, but this is way OTT:

"Indeed, the fact that a photographer must have been briefed to be present to take those photos speaks volumes. I doubt very much that a photographer just happened to be there at that time."

The paparazzi hang out at all the flash places to catch these photos every day. The idea that a newspaper editor knows when someone is going to have an argument is ridiculous.

BIWI Tue 18-Jun-13 09:43:24

No, I didn't mean that they knew that day that they would be having an argument. But given the incident between the two of them which happened earlier, a few weeks ago, I would suggest that the paper(s) have been out to catch it happening again.

(Actually, it's interesting that there was a photograph of the previous incident too ...)

BIWI Tue 18-Jun-13 09:44:41

Sorry, the point I was trying to make is that there is obviously a story here that has been known about, it isn't just something that has been captured spontaneously.

The scarier thing for me is not so much the justification of the photos and his guilty plea it is her silence on what happened. There is 'keeping her privacy' but also ack owledgement from her that what he did was wrong ....

What sort of message is this giving to her children?

yamsareyammy Tue 18-Jun-13 09:46:31

Agree with Penny. Was going to say the same thing.
It is like taxis "hanging around" at railyway stations.
They are and they are not.
They know, if they stay there long enough, that they will get a fare.

Same with paps and photographs.
The restaurant is where some celebs go.

FreudiansSlipper Tue 18-Jun-13 09:59:38

the restaurants is not a celeb restaurant and there are only a few tables outside but they were known for going there

maybe this was one of a few incidents and rumours spread fast whatever the reasons for the paps being there they have caught an incident of dv. how or why does not really matter to others (of course to her it is different) what should matter is that Nigella is getting enough support to get out

Lazyjaney Tue 18-Jun-13 10:07:23

"The key to reading media critically is to cultivate a bullshit radar, look for the slant, consider context. Not just take a universal cutesy "Look wot a rugged freethinker I am in not believing a word of this" stance to everything that gets written"

IMO it is extremely reasonable to be sceptical of anything the tabloids report, especially regarding celebrities, and to wait for corroboration elsewhere. This is not the same as taking the opposing position.

limitedperiodonly Tue 18-Jun-13 10:14:50

The key to reading media critically is to cultivate a bullshit radar, look for the slant, consider context. Not just take a universal cutesy "Look wot a rugged freethinker I am in not believing a word of this" stance to everything that gets written.

YY madbuslady. I find that posturing knowingness to be, in fact, hopelessly naive.

MadBusLady Tue 18-Jun-13 10:19:07

No, this is exactly my point. What you are talking about is scepticism as blunt instrument, not as scalpel. One-size-fits-all scepticism in response to "anything the tabloids report" is very simplistic. You look at context. How likely is this, given the people involved, previously known facts about them, the angle of the newspaper, the legal risks to the newspaper, sheer common sense, to be substantially true? How likely is it to contain not one word of truth? Can I find out anything else about the people, or the journalist? Are these kinds of stories usually told by this paper? Why are they telling it, and why now? Why might they be misrepresenting? How have the people in the story interacted with the journalist, if at all?

I think it's just a function of reading a lot of media, to be honest. If you do that as part of your job - whether as journalist, editor, press officer or whatever - you will get more of a feel for where the bullshit is, and isn't.

MadBusLady Tue 18-Jun-13 10:19:45

(Sorry, that was to Lazeyjaney)

Latara Tue 18-Jun-13 11:36:43

What i found as bad as the throat grabbing was the way Saatchi grabbed Nigella by the nose and 'tweaked' it - i think that this was a patronising, humiliating and nasty action.

The photos may not show 'the whole story' but i don't think it's necessary to - she was clearly being physically manhandled on the throat and face, she was crying - it's abusive in my opinion.

merrymouse Tue 18-Jun-13 12:02:53

Clearly photos can lie. However they cannot turn 'a playful tiff' into what was portrayed, the police do not waste their time with playful tiffs, and people do not accept cautions for merely having a marital disagreement.

I think the discussion has moved on from the point when all the public knew about were the photos.

PoppyAmex Tue 18-Jun-13 13:03:39

I was just commenting on the other thread about how I wrote to the Evening Standard two days ago asking if they were going to cease listing him as a columnist. No answer, unsurprisingly.

And now THIS

How shocking is this?!

merrymouse Tue 18-Jun-13 16:09:46

Just comes across as really creepy Poppy.

As I said before, if there were nothing to it there would have been no need to consult a lawyer, the police wouldn't have wasted time questioning him and they wouldn't have cautioned him.

Whether or not they seemed 'normal' at dinner parties in the following week is neither here nor there.

Anybody who thinks you can make a point by putting your hand on somebody else's throat is a nasty piece of work, however much money they have.

piprabbit Tue 18-Jun-13 16:33:30

The reason they seemed normal was because, by the light of their particular relationship, it was normal. I don't suppose that this weeks events were a one off, CS genuinely thinks this is OK and NL has presumably developed coping strategies to get through the abuse.
It doesn't make it OK.

PoppyAmex Tue 18-Jun-13 16:58:33

It's the way he said that he only accepted the caution so it "wouldn't hag over their heads", effectively suggesting he has done nothing damnable.

Horrid.

Anyone else see anything in the fact that Nigella herself has not commented at all?

MummyAbroad Tue 18-Jun-13 17:07:05

IsThisAGoodIdea your post saying "She could leave if she wanted to. She obviously doesn't want to. " shows that you clearly do not understand the dynamics of DV. Physical abuse never happens without accompanying psychological abuse which is in effect much much more damaging because while you can heal from bruises the emotional abuse can keep you trapped in the relationship for far longer than you "chose" to be with the person. I would encourage you to find out more about how the psychology of how this works because DV and EA are so common, there is probably someone in your family or circle of friends being affected by it, or if not now, then maybe later on in some point in your life or your children's lives you will come into contact with it. Please make sure you know how to help.

MummyAbroad Tue 18-Jun-13 17:11:56

HeartsTrumpDiamonds I think it means she is just having a good think about what to do next. LTB Nigella!

somebloke123 Tue 18-Jun-13 17:27:14

Even after one has exhausted all the (reasonable) points that couples' rows may not be all they seem and some of the most loving relationships can involve loud quarrels ending in tears, there is really no getting away from the absolute indefensiibility of tweaking someone by the nose and grabbing them by the throat. He was bullying and humiliating her in public and hurting her - and whether or not he intended to, the throat grabbing might have caused her serious physical harm.

If, as was mentioned above, she was herself hit repeatedly by her mother during childhood - something which CS would presumably have been well aware of - this makes his actions all the more despicable.

AnyFucker Tue 18-Jun-13 18:44:34

I am more concerned that Nigella has a big Fuck-Off gagging order slapped on her by her abusive husband and his ass-licking lawyers, tbh

YouTheCat Tue 18-Jun-13 18:49:51

That is just appalling.

She needs to read this and see how many people think her sad act husband is a total shit. angry

merrymouse Tue 18-Jun-13 18:55:13

Even if she does have a gagging order, it is difficult to think of anything that could incriminate him more than the rubbish that has already come out if his mouth.

Having said that, as the victim she is quite entitled not to engage. Although this happened in a public place - if you abuse your wife in the street you can't be surprised when people notice - I don't think we are entitled to blow by blow accounts of what happens next, particularly as the children involved are still quite young.

BIWI Tue 18-Jun-13 18:55:34

Eh? What has happened, AF? Has that actually happened?

YouTheCat Tue 18-Jun-13 18:56:38

The children aren't young. They're all teens.

MadBusLady Tue 18-Jun-13 19:01:47

I don't think we'd know, BIWI, if it was the kind that prevents you from even saying there is an injunction.

Here's something that might be positive though. Just read on Twitter that a domestic violence charity (it doesn't say which one) told the World at One that calls to them quadrupled after the photos were published.

justanuthermanicmumsday Tue 18-Jun-13 19:03:14

I don't think mn are supporting satchi some like me just like to reserve judgement until the facts come out, and in time I'm sure they'll come out, until then i think we could debate about domestic violence in society but this case well if you like a gossip yeah carry on, its not my cup of tea.

Madbuslady Murdoch inquiry need i say more, tabloids can't be trusted, libel doesnt cost the, much it doesnt rewlly hit their coffers hard.

The law will prevail and I'm sure nigella will be forced to speak soon. I'd hate to be in the public eye like she is, I do feel sorry for her. I think the press should leave her alone.

Solari Tue 18-Jun-13 19:06:14

I'd be willing to bet that a significant percentage of women excusing his actions have husbands who use similar expressions of violence. They have to play it down and minimise it because otherwise they'd have to take a harder look at what happens in their own home (and so many just can't psychologically bring themselves to).

There is also certainly another group of women (I have encountered often!) who will always side with men against women, because as far as I can make out, it puts them on the "winning" side. Aligning yourself with the more powerful and gaining their approval (and implied protection) can feel very safe.

Believing that women on the receiving end of violence are somehow "bringing it on themselves" or "doing something to provoke" also gives some women the illusion that they are in control over men's actions towards them. If they behave "right", none of that nasty stuff will happen to them!

MadBusLady Tue 18-Jun-13 19:08:24

justanuthermanicmumsday

<head-desk>

The law has fucking prevailed. He has made an admission of being guilt of assault. That's what a caution is.

BIWI Tue 18-Jun-13 19:09:13

some like me just like to reserve judgement until the facts come out

What the fuck else are you waiting to come out?

Saatchi has admitted it and accepted a police caution!

What a stupid thing to say.

AnyFucker Tue 18-Jun-13 19:09:22

sorry, BIWI, I have just re-read and it looks like I know it for sure

I don't...it is just my personal opinion

Saatchi is a very powerful man...I think it very much possible though, don't you ?

BIWI Tue 18-Jun-13 19:10:06

I wonder if he could actually do that though, given that it's already been all over the papers?

AnyFucker Tue 18-Jun-13 19:11:28

Nigella will not, and should not be "forced to speak" hmm
What the hell kind of comment is that ?

Nigella can keep her own counsel about this until Kingdom Come if she so wishes, as far as I am concerned

merrymouse Tue 18-Jun-13 19:19:10

Don't know about anybody else, but if your mother is being hounded by the media, I'd put any child still at school and living in the family home in the 'still quite young camp'.

Moistenedbint1 Tue 18-Jun-13 19:28:23

To those arguing that the media wouldn't risk making libelous, sensationalistic accusations... Remember Frankie Boyle.. Esther Ranzen ? The mirror group is no stranger to defamation hence the reason so many people have cautiously reserved judgement.

By thst token - Flat earth news, brilliant book - advised reading for those who blindly believe the heavily embellished bullshit served up to us by the press.

And likewise, I find the braying lynch mob utterly depressing. Individuals who have proffered an open-minded, objective, impartial stance from the outset and have been denigrated and/or labelled a "cunt" by those taking the moral high ground. Would be laughable, if it wasn't so hypocrital. Sometimes I think, rather uncharitably, that some arseholes aren't content with an innocuous explanation, instead preferring to zealously cling to the most scandalous, most opprobrious possibility whilst immediately disregarding anything else. Judge, jury, executioner all in one.

merrymouse Tue 18-Jun-13 19:31:20

But there isn't an innocuous explanation. The police questioned him and he accepted a caution.

They do not caution you for checking somebody's glands or having a light hearted tiff with your spouse.

AnyFucker Tue 18-Jun-13 19:33:10

Another apologist, I see.

MadBusLady Tue 18-Jun-13 19:33:46

By thst token - Flat earth news, brilliant book - advised reading for those who blindly believe the heavily embellished bullshit served up to us by the press.

Oh jesus christ save me. Right, first of all, Flat Earth News is on my bookshelf. Second of all, I'm just going to reprint my comment from above, because the comment I want to make to you now would probably get me banned at a stroke:

^What you are talking about is scepticism as blunt instrument, not as scalpel. One-size-fits-all scepticism in response to "anything the tabloids report" is very simplistic. You look at context. How likely is this, given the people involved, previously known facts about them, the angle of the newspaper, the legal risks to the newspaper, sheer common sense, to be substantially true? How likely is it to contain not one word of truth? Can I find out anything else about the people, or the journalist? Are these kinds of stories usually told by this paper? Why are they telling it, and why now? Why might they be misrepresenting? How have the people in the story interacted with the journalist, if at all?

I think it's just a function of reading a lot of media, to be honest. If you do that as part of your job - whether as journalist, editor, press officer or whatever - you will get more of a feel for where the bullshit is, and isn't.^

Mintyy Tue 18-Jun-13 19:35:35

Welcome to Mumsnet moistenedbint1. What an interesting nickname you have chosen.

MadBusLady Tue 18-Jun-13 19:40:01

Ha, trigger-happy is what I am.

Back2Two Tue 18-Jun-13 19:42:19

I was concerned about the rushing to judgment, but I now accept that the pictures were graphic evidence of an assault.

An apology from the Guardian writer Roy Greenslade.
To those of you waiting for the "evidence" it's accepted as common knowledge that this was DV and abusive. This writer had (as some of you are still doing) speculated yesterday on how it may have been something more innocent and how we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

As the world was so hmm and actually amazed by his viewpoint in the light of the evidence we all heard and saw, he has had to apologise in the paper today.

He is a friend of Nigella.

Here it is if you're interested

PoppyAmex Tue 18-Jun-13 19:44:11

MadBusLady said:

"The key to reading media critically is to cultivate a bullshit radar, look for the slant, consider context. Not just take a universal cutesy "Look wot a rugged freethinker I am in not believing a word of this" stance to everything that gets written."

I think this answers your post, moistened.

Solari excellent post up thread, very sobering.

yamsareyammy Tue 18-Jun-13 19:45:58

HTD, I think she may be under the duvet, poor woman.

How do gagging orders work?

Back2Two Tue 18-Jun-13 19:46:14

This article in The Express (yes, The Express) is a really good description of just what DV can be and how it can look nothing like DV to other people.

An excellent article

yamsareyammy Tue 18-Jun-13 19:47:05

justanuther, you are still reserving judgement?

Quite what do you need?

yamsareyammy Tue 18-Jun-13 19:49:37

Missed Moistened.
Why do you read anything at all, if you are going to rubbish it.
If you have no idea what on earth is going on, I seriously suggest that you stop reading papers, watching news, reading anything on the internet.
Because you are not able to discern anything at all.

yamsareyammy Tue 18-Jun-13 20:02:48

Read the express article. It is very good.
I think it is right to say that the person who it is done to has a big heart.

Solari Tue 18-Jun-13 20:13:16

Thank you PoppyAmex, glad it contributed! smile

Moistenedbint1 Tue 18-Jun-13 21:56:54

But there isn't an innocuous explanation. The police questioned him and he accepted a caution.They do not caution you for checking somebody's glands or having a light hearted tiff with your spouse.

Yep, and lynch mob inspired verbal bile was regurgitated from the outset... well before Saatchi was even cautioned and the press acquired information relating to his questioning..

anyfucker - from one who would probably advocate chemical castration for infectual cleaning of say, pebble dash and/or leaving the toilet seat up that made me laugh.. (and no I'm not comparing the aforementioned with domestic violence before you start)

Moistenedbint1 Tue 18-Jun-13 21:59:19

yams its not all unmitigated bull, but you do have to sift the wheat from the chaff... A lot.

Moistenedbint1 Tue 18-Jun-13 22:12:45

Ta Mintyy glad you approve. grin

AnyFucker Tue 18-Jun-13 22:26:48

the "lynch mob" were right though, weren't they

I put that down to emotional intelligence and having the ability to see what is right before their eyes

there is a script, and Saatchi is following it to the letter

yamsareyammy Tue 18-Jun-13 22:29:02

So now you have sifted, what is your conclusion?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now