Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this man was somewhat justified in what he did?

164 replies

Loeri · 05/09/2013 07:02

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10286653/Man-takes-dates-Blackberry-mobile-phone-after-she-refuses-to-pay-half-the-bill.html

It's 2013. A woman is taking the piss in going out on a date with no money, especially to a swanky place where two rounds of drinks cost £54! I really can't blame the man for being extremely pissed off with her and holding her phone as collateral.

OP posts:
caramelwaffle · 05/09/2013 08:15

Yabu.

SoupDragon · 05/09/2013 08:15

Then it seems that she subsequently cut the date short (ie he now had no chance of getting laid) and only at that point did he start freaking out about money, or so the wording of the article suggests.

No, to me it say she cut the date short after he insisted she pay and got angry when she refused.

But Ms Sultana had assumed it was the gentleman's prerogative to pay for everything on the first date and after Mr Nimmala became angry Ms Sultana cut the evening short.

I do not for one moment think he should have harassed her or stolen her phone. However, I do think she behaved badly by insisting he pay for her drinks.

GrimmaTheNome · 05/09/2013 08:17

There are legal ways for him to recoup his money if he felt so strongly about it.

I doubt there would be in this instance - there was no verbal contract, what would be his case? The onus was also on him to make sure the rules were clear, if he was so bothered about money. But then in that case he wouldn't have gone somewhere expensive in the first place.

SoupDragon · 05/09/2013 08:18

The onus was also on him to make sure the rules were clear, if he was so bothered about money

Why was the onus not also on her to make it clear she was not going to pay her share?

Original poster
Loeri · 05/09/2013 08:19

Why was the onus on him and not both of them?

OP posts:
SuperConfused · 05/09/2013 08:22

The sequencing in the article suggests he got angry after she said she expected him to pay- so maybe he bought the first two rounds and expected her to get the third. It seems like she left in response to his displeasure.

That being said, mugging someone is never ok. She was unreasonable but what he did was criminal.

LessMissAbs · 05/09/2013 08:23

Loeri LessMiss, I would think that if nothing to the contrary was agreed upon beforehand, paying your own way would be the rule. Why would it not be?

Why would it be? Are there standard, set rules for dates?

I don't think so. Social arrangements are generally unenforceable in law. To then attempt to enforce your own self applied rules by criminal conduct is not defensible.

Her conduct does not seem totally unreasonable in the circumstances. There are plenty of instances where one party does not pay on a date and the other party is unhappy with this, but sucks it up as part of dating. I've got a female friend who has paid twice for a man to go to the cinema with her recently and once for both their meals, because he said he had no money. She was unhappy with this, but if she wanted a remedy, would not be justified in removing property from him by force.

To me, two drinks and leaving is possibly indicative of someone who wants to get away from a date that isn't working out. It may be that she didn't want the second drink or didn't drink either drink. Its irrelevant though, as social arrangements are not enforceable in law, unless they are put into contractual form in some way. And then, unless it was in writing, you would run into problems of proof. You could presumably bring in the concept of unjust enrichment, but again you need a contract to base it on.

scallopsrgreat · 05/09/2013 08:23

I'm with ithaka. YABU. Can't believe people are equating the two behaviours. Misunderstanding or bad assumption vs scare tactics & violence. Yep completely reasonable Hmm

LessMissAbs · 05/09/2013 08:24

Loeri Why was the onus on him and not both of them?

I assume the poster making that comment is referring to the fact that it was he who is making the issue about not sharing payment. Therefore the onus is on him, as complainant, to prove his point.

Tryharder · 05/09/2013 08:27

If a man invites me for a drink then he pays. It's a drink for fucks sake not dinner at The Ivy.

In what world could anyone consider that this aggressive, nasty, tightfisted twat be justified or even partially justified in mugging this woman? Over £20!

I am flabbergasted at those who are saying that the man has a point.

If I am on a first date, I expect to be bought a drink at the very least. The fact that the drinks were expensive is by the by. He should have gone to a cheaper venue if he couldn't afford it.

flossieraptor · 05/09/2013 08:33

BlueGrass it states they were at Ruby Blue which is chaotic, so I think we can assume drinks are paid on delivery, or a card taken.

GrimmaTheNome · 05/09/2013 08:35

Why was the onus on him and not both of them?
that's why the word 'also' was in the sentence. Hmm

0utnumbered · 05/09/2013 08:40

No, he shouldn't of taken her phone as this is theft.

She however is unbelievably cheeky! I never carry cash, I've had my purse stolen before and I am paranoid about this but I always have my bank card (cards can be cancelled if lost, cash is gone forever!) & if I'm out for a meal or something with friends I usually put it all on my card and they give me their share in cash, they are used to this & no one minds lol! Even if you do expect the man to pay, surely you would take your bank card or a bit of cash anyway?!

Original poster
Loeri · 05/09/2013 08:41

"If I am on a first date, I expect to be bought a drink at the very least."
Why?

OP posts:
mynameisslimshady · 05/09/2013 08:44

He wasn't justified at all.

He bought two rounds of drinks, then she left and he followed her, intimidated her and mugged her.

Fair enough she shouldn't have expected him to pay, they obviously have different expectations but that was easily sorted when he asked her to pay for a round and she left, he should have put it down to a bad date and her being a gold digger and thanked his lucky stars that he escaped so lightly not committed a criminal offence.

Tiredemma · 05/09/2013 08:46

I see no justification at all for this type of behaviour.

I seriously hope he gets a conviction for this and learns a valuable lesson. Idiot.

peachactiviaminge · 05/09/2013 08:47

If we're truly equal to men why do so many women think the man should pay on dates? I'm not excusing what he did it was very wrong just confused.

IneedAsockamnesty · 05/09/2013 08:48

Is dating really so complicated these days? Last time I was going on dates (it was about 20 years ago) it used to be quite usual for who ever invited you to pay for a first date and then splitting bills on future dates,

So if I invited someone to dinner it was my bill if they invited me it was there bill, we always used to have the shall we split it convo but nobody ever did because it was seen as a bit tight second and future dates it was normal to split.

Either way you still don't steal someone's phone

Crinkle77 · 05/09/2013 08:49

First off they must be mad to go somewhere where it costs £25 a round. She was wrong to go without any money but he should have just realised she was a possible gold digger, paid for the drinks and left. His reaction was totally out of order.

SoupDragon · 05/09/2013 08:50

If I am on a first date, I expect to be bought a drink at the very least.

She was. He wanted her to go halves on two rounds - perhaps he expects to be bought a drink at the very least too.

If a man invites me for a drink then he pays.

Dos the article say he invited her? I thought it was vague on this and it sounded like a mutually arranged date.

Just to reiterate, he was not justified in stealing her phone, just in feeling pissed off that she was refusing to pay her share.

Original poster
Loeri · 05/09/2013 08:52

I think internet dating makes it complicated. If the man pays for the first date, then its a bit unfair because there will be a lot of first dates with no second date. The rule should be to go dutch unless it is specifically agreed otherwise beforehand.

OP posts:
quoteunquote · 05/09/2013 08:57

OP I real hope you never sit on any jury.

Perhaps an evening class doing A level law might help.

OnTheBottomWithAWomensWeekly · 05/09/2013 08:57

It doesn't matter if she should have paid half or not, he followed her down the road demanding cash and then stole her phone, running away with it.

On what planet is that ok? If I owe you a tenner will you mug me for my handbag at a bust stop?

SilverApples · 05/09/2013 08:58

No, he wasn't justified at all, she was a freeloader but that doesn't make it OK for him to break the law because of a scam.

IneedAsockamnesty · 05/09/2013 08:59

The Internet does not make it different you still have a choice on how many dates you go on

Swipe left for the next trending thread