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.

[yamsareyammy]

So now you have sifted, what is your conclusion?

[AnyFucker]

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

[Moistenedbint1]

Ta Mintyy glad you approve.

[Moistenedbint1]

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

[Moistenedbint1]

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)

[Solari]

Thank you PoppyAmex, glad it contributed!

[yamsareyammy]

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.

[yamsareyammy]

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]

justanuther, you are still reserving judgement?

Quite what do you need?

[Back2Two]

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]

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

How do gagging orders work?

[PoppyAmex]

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.

[Back2Two]

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 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

[MadBusLady]

Ha, trigger-happy is what I am.

[Mintyy]

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

[MadBusLady]

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.^

[AnyFucker]

Another apologist, I see.

[merrymouse]

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.

[Moistenedbint1]

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]

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'.

[AnyFucker]

Nigella will not, and should not be "forced to speak"
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

[BIWI]

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

[AnyFucker]

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]

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.

[MadBusLady]

justanuthermanicmumsday



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