Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

CBB 'punch' incident. Views?

784 replies

YeOldeFishWife · 01/09/2018 11:09

Not sure about this as it is highly irritating to have someone jumping around you pretend to 'box' and he could have poked her by accident. She was in a car accident recently and could be tender there. Some could say she had a right to complain even though he was obviously not deliberately trying to hurt her.

The asking for him to be removed from the house (if she did that) and claims that he'd 'beaten her up' were a complete overreaction of though.

OP posts:
NaughtToThreeSadOnions · 04/09/2018 01:49

Heres another www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20524505

GunpowderGelatine · 04/09/2018 01:50

Katie Hopkins was never charged with anything - that was a civil case. Do you understand the difference between civil and criminal?

That last post was to gunpowder doubting that defamation of character wasn't an actual thing, by the way

See now you're just making stuff up, it's pathetic. I never 'doubted defamation of character was a thing' Hmm what a weird thing to say, why would I doubt it existed when I've studied Law? That would be an odd thing to do. I said it wasn't a criminal offence. And YOU have argued it is but shown me no evidence (because it isn't a criminal offence). I don't believe for a second that you've studied law like you say you have (watching episodes of Judge John Deed doesn't count BTW)

GunpowderGelatine · 04/09/2018 01:53

Nice try Naught but Leonard Watters, who accused Louis Walsh, was not arrested for defamation of character. He was arrested for making false reports to Irish police. They are not the same thing. Louis Walsh then sued him for defamation of character

NaughtToThreeSadOnions · 04/09/2018 01:59

So er making false alligations about domestic volicance, false alegations of maliciosly and delbrately "puching some one repeatedly like a boxer punches a punch bag"

He clearly didnt puch her repeatedly like a boxer punches a punch bag but thats what she alleged.

Does this mean she could go to jail?????

BabyCobra · 04/09/2018 02:00

GunpowderGelatine Out of interest would you be happy (as an experiment) to have someone make a horrendous untrue allegation about you, that is told to everyone you know, your family, your employers and plastered across the national press. There would be no concrete evidence either way. Just your word against the accusers word.

Would you be prepared to go through this to show that, its not that bad really - you can probably recover your reputation over time.

I certainly wouldn't.

GunpowderGelatine · 04/09/2018 02:01

No. Because lying isn't a crime!

If she's gone to the police and lied about an assault then she could be charged with perverting the course of justice. Depending on many factors, this could result in jail tine.

But as it stands now she hasn't committed a crime. She's an awful person but it's way OTT wanting her to be arrested.

rainbowsandsmiles · 04/09/2018 02:02

See now you're just making stuff up, it's pathetic. I never 'doubted defamation of character was a thing

Yeah,you kind of did.

It's a civil crime. Not a police matter.

I can promise you they're not a criminal matter

Also, he'd have to make a loss in order to sue her
(Not true, come across as not knowing what you're talking about. Earnings don't have to come into it.)

Why this then if it's not a thing, if you can't get into trouble for it as it's not a police matter? Civil or not, it's all linguistic semantics and distracting from the fact that yes, you can get into trouble for defamation of character, and at the least be heavily fined inews.co.uk/news/uk/jack-monroe-awarded-24000-katie-hopkins-libel-trial/

GunpowderGelatine · 04/09/2018 02:02

No Baby I wouldn't. I'm not sure what your point is?

Tigger001 · 04/09/2018 02:03

@GunpowderGelatine I feel you are going in a bit hard there on @rainbowsandsmiles as you stated "he would have had to make a loss to sue " which was incorrect, you also stared it would be hard to prove the case, when there is 24\7 footage evidencing what happened so you can see why you studying law does not bear great weight in this specific case.
I'm not "having a go " just don't like it when it turns nasty when people disagree or are proven wrong.
It's only a forum,

rainbowsandsmiles · 04/09/2018 02:04

But as it stands now she hasn't committed a crime

This has been explained to you upthread, and I've actually agreed with you. No, she hasn't committed a crime as of now. You're flat out refusing to see that she was out to destroy his reputation though.

GunpowderGelatine · 04/09/2018 02:05

rainbow I'm beginning to think you don't understand the difference between civil and criminal. None of those quotes from me prove I think "defamation of character isn't a thing". I'm a bit embarrassed for you TBH for getting his so wrong. You've linked once again to the Katie Hopkins trial. She lost, but she is not a criminal for her defamatory actions. Police did not make arrests. Defamation is not a criminal offence. Do you understand what I mean by that?

GunpowderGelatine · 04/09/2018 02:08

@Tigger001 I said (to you) fair enough about the loss of earnings, although I personally think without them it would be a weak case a that's by the by.

I'm not being unfair to rainbow who is literally making things up about what I said. And failed to post examples of me "denying defamation is a thing" Confused

Both you and rainbows have insisted defamation is a criminal offence. Call me old fashioned but when people stated incorrect facts I like to put them right, and if they continue to insist I ask for evidence. None has been produced, nor does it exist

BabyCobra · 04/09/2018 02:09

GunpowderGelatine You have repeatedly minimised the impact that untrue allegations would have on the lives of others. Like its not a big deal. I think you would find it a big deal if it happened to you or a loved one of yours.

It is irrelevant whether someone could get damages for it. The damage done to the individuals mind and sense of identity would be permanent.

GunpowderGelatine · 04/09/2018 02:09

You're flat out refusing to see that she was out to destroy his reputation though

No I haven't. I've never said this. Again with the making stuff up Hmm

rainbowsandsmiles · 04/09/2018 02:09

Gunpowder - you absolutely have no idea what you're going on about, I'm usually nice but sorry I'm feeling embarrassed for you.

Tigger001 · 04/09/2018 02:10

From my understanding @GunpowderGelatine has never said defamation of character is not a thing, but it is not a criminal matter, which involves the police, but it's a civil matter.
Nor @BabyCobra had @GunpowderGelatine every condoned what happened or tried to say what happened was acceptable in any way, was just simply arguing the civil/ criminal part with @rainbowsandsmiles.
Anyway on that note that while it's turning not very nice I'm going to leave the discussion .

GunpowderGelatine · 04/09/2018 02:11

rainbows are you joking? Do you understand what a civil offence is? And do you understand that defamation is not a criminal offence?

rainbowsandsmiles · 04/09/2018 02:12

I'm not being unfair to rainbow who is literally making things up about what I said.

I have not made up one single thing about you. Merely pointed out things you yourself have said.If you're making yourself look an arse it's all your own doing.

GunpowderGelatine · 04/09/2018 02:14

You said I didn't think defamation of character was a thing. Where did I say that?
You haven't pointed anything out.

I said it's not a criminal offence. Which I think by know you know it's not and don't want to admit you were wrong. I don't believe you have ever studied Law as that's a very basic 'rule' in the law and I'd expect everyone to know that.

GunpowderGelatine · 04/09/2018 02:15

Merely pointed out things you yourself have said.

You copied and pasted quotes, well done you, but you may as well have put 'wibble' because the quotes had no bearing to what you claim I have said

rainbowsandsmiles · 04/09/2018 02:15

You have repeatedly minimised the impact that untrue allegations would have on the lives of others. Like its not a big deal.

Exactly this.

It is irrelevant whether someone could get damages for it. The damage done to the individuals mind and sense of identity would be permanent.
And this. Not a thing though, as they're teflon coated and they don't get affected. Apparently.

rainbowsandsmiles · 04/09/2018 02:17

I don't believe you have ever studied Law as that's a very basic 'rule' in the law and I'd expect everyone to know that.

If you had ever studied law you would know that defamation and libel/slander was real. Not be dismissing it.

GunpowderGelatine · 04/09/2018 02:17

Sooo are we going to admit we were wrong rainbows?

I stand by my belief that the vanishingly few men who are falsely accused (especially celebs) don't have their 'lives ruined'. Sorry not sorry if you don't agree, or see it as minimising, but that's my stance.

GunpowderGelatine · 04/09/2018 02:19

If you had ever studied law you would know that defamation and libel/slander was real

You're taking the piss now, no?

Point out to me when I said it wasn't real?

I said it wasn't a criminal offence, it was a civil offence. How is that saying it wasn't real??

You argue it's a criminal offence. It's not. How is this hard?

rainbowsandsmiles · 04/09/2018 02:21

I stand by my belief that the vanishingly few men who are falsely accused (especially celebs) don't have their 'lives ruined'. Sorry not sorry if you don't agree, or see it as minimising, but that's my stance.

Again with the "vanishly few men have their lives ruined therefore I don't believe it's a thing" that you were spouting upthread.
So what if the majority of men supposedly don't? Does that mean we should ignore those that do have their lives ruined as it's not actually a thing as most people supposedly aren't affected?