to be very angry at and suspicious of Simon Boswell

[bejeezus]

This!

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2089962/Simon-Boswell-wrongly-accused-domestic-violence-Lysette-Anthony.html

at him and at the DM (although it shouldnt really be a suprise)

Anyway......BECAUSE;

1. He uses 'tactics' well used by abusive people and oh so well known by those who have survived abusive relationships; shes crazy/shes going through the menopause/she inflicted the bruises herself/ anyone else would have hit the bloke but not me, I am so rational and calm

2. Another well known tactic; painting himself as the long suffering victim

3. He writes the article from a 'humerous' angle or at least tries to bring humour to it; neither DV situations nor wrongful accusations of DV are in the least bit fucking funny

4. he claims to 'not be writing the article for revenge' why is he doing it then? Is he trying to raise awareness of this wrongfull accusation issue? I think not - he includes no facts nor statistics; it can be assessed as nothing more than a slur campaign

5. He slates the police- if this had been/was a real DV incident(s) then the police should have been commanded for their sterling handling of the situation(s) ;surely he can see this?

6. He invokes Godwin's Law FFS

The fact that he has written this stupid article in such a stupid way, which is at the very best insensitive and suggests to me some kind of personality disorder,makes me think he got away with it!!

Ggggrrrrrrrrrrr....

AND...for it to even go to court, the CPS must have thought there was enough evidence? It cant just go to court because she wanted it to!

I couldn't even get past the title of the DM article.

His own decision to write it is not motived by revenge but I would imagine some money as his 'reputation lies in tatters '.

he doesnt actually SAY what the awful effects are that this has had on him - how his 'tattered reputation' has manifested does he?! Which would have been much more useful if he was actually trying to raise awareness...

...Too busy detailing her alledged mental health issues

Quote '' i could remember was that I had ' right to remain slient '' the police caution does not use those words ! They may in USA but not UK !

Why on earth did they stay together so long?

I would give him a tip; if someone screams at you to get out of the house, don't continue to cook a meal.

I have read half of the article and thought that it was a load of bollocks !

Haven't bothered with the rest .

Avantia alot of the detail he gives about being arrested doesnt add up I think

I hope she has some lovely people around her

lynette yes i agree

I know - I know police procedures pretty well - so thats why I gave up reading it and classed it as 'bollocks'.

just read this comment at the bottom of the article;

I hope the feminists are finally happy, at the situation they have manufactured for their husbands, partners and sons. What a very sorry place Britain has become! :-((

• Andy, Sussex, 22/1/2012 07:

i dont know so much about police procedures, but I have been arrested a few times

It also suggests to me a personality disorder. But it's clear that she's the one suffering from it.

Assuming it's true, I completely respect his right to go public with the story. I've got no sympathy for her.

He does refer to cps in the article though - says that if the alleged victim wishes to prosecute, then the case will go to court even if against the recommendations of cps, and that that was the case here - i.e. police twice told Lisette Anthony that cps felt insufficient case, and she still pushed for the case to be heard in court.

Obviously he could be lying through his teeth. However, it's been to court, he has been found not guilty and as such I'm a bit uncomfortable with his being lambasted for doing exactly what she has previously done in going to the press and for putting his recollections of the sorry tale in the public domain. If the evidence was limited to a photograph of a bruise taken by LA herself, then he's got a point in suggesting that the evidence was rather thin.

Obviously would be preferable not to air ones dirty washing in public. But when the other party has done that, turning the other cheek might be seen as an admission of guilt? I dunno - makes for uncomfortable reading.

By the way, my recollection of the minutiae of the piece may be flawed - read t earlier today and haven't reread prior to posting, so going on my memory.