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
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

191 replies

PoppyAmex · 17/06/2013 16:53

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.

OP posts:
merrymouse · 18/06/2013 08:34

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 · 18/06/2013 08:40

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 · 18/06/2013 08:41

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.

Original poster
PoppyAmex · 18/06/2013 08:54

"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.

OP posts:
BIWI · 18/06/2013 08:56

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 · 18/06/2013 08:57

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

merrymouse · 18/06/2013 09:13

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 · 18/06/2013 09:15

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 · 18/06/2013 09:18

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.

Original poster
PoppyAmex · 18/06/2013 09:24

"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?"

OP posts:
MadBusLady · 18/06/2013 09:25

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 · 18/06/2013 09:28

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 · 18/06/2013 09:32

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 · 18/06/2013 09:41

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 · 18/06/2013 09:43

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 · 18/06/2013 09:44

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.

Itsjustafleshwound · 18/06/2013 09:45

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 · 18/06/2013 09:46

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 · 18/06/2013 09:59

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 · 18/06/2013 10:07

"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 · 18/06/2013 10:14

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 · 18/06/2013 10:19

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 · 18/06/2013 10:19

(Sorry, that was to Lazeyjaney)

Latara · 18/06/2013 11:36

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 · 18/06/2013 12:02

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.