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

[PoppyAmex]

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.

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

Oh, did see the gland checking one!

Really?

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

I haven't seen any comments like that.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

This thread could be smoking them out though...

There aren't many. Don't exaggerate.

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

aargh accept not except, my grammar is failing

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.

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.

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

Until now it has been considered a "quirk".

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?

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.

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.