Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think David Pemsel's accuser was leading him on?

83 replies

caperberries · 28/11/2019 13:43

Not sure if there's a thread about this already, but the Premier League boss David Pemsel (in his fifties) has been harassing a former colleague in her twenties with flirtatious texts. My first reaction was ew, but looking at the texts, I really think she was encouraging him.

www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CM-COMPOSITE-PHONE-P5.jpg

www.thesun.co.uk/news/10438420/premier-league-david-pemsel-texts/

OP posts:
T0tallyFuckedUpFamily · 29/11/2019 12:43

I’ve just started a thread about Mumsnet becoming less feminist, if anyone’s interested. In AIBU.

It’s absolutely has.

christmastreewithhairyfairy · 29/11/2019 16:17

It’s absolutely has

Maybe it has but almost everyone has disagreed with the OP so I'm not sure this thread is evidence of that Confused

CoupeCourte · 29/11/2019 21:49

@Wheredidigowrongggggg he's obviously got some great lawyers - you can still find all the texts online though, some US-based blogs not so easily gagged!

Obviously the Sun gets a lot of (justified) hate on here but it's not like this story would ever have come out in the Guardian or a left leaning publication, they'd have protected him. So if you're a young woman and you're harassed by a left leaning man - this kind of harassment which obviously wouldn't meet a legal standard but is creepy nonetheless- you don't have many other options than to go to the right wing press.

Peggyflo · 30/11/2019 00:57

Im conflicted on this one.

Yeah she is saying no but making it sound like that is only because he has a wife, not because she wouldnt otherwise be interested, which i think he picks up on as he then pretty much asks how it would be if wife wasnt an issue and kind of makes it clear she isnt.

If you clearly arent interested in someone why add the kisses. Why even respond at all? Why agree to "discuss" it as opposed to just being straight with him then shutting down any further discussions on the matter?

Makes no sense to me?

Tvstar · 30/11/2019 06:31

I think the xx s muddy the waters to be honest. Without them the messages are clear

Tvstar · 30/11/2019 06:32

And a warning to people xx is not punctuation

Vulpine · 30/11/2019 06:46

The xx definitely muddy the water. I'da basically told him to do one and threaten to show the texts to his wife. What an odious creep

Butchyrestingface · 30/11/2019 06:56

She is not remotely leading him on. She is trying to get him to fuck off and at the same time, not turn him against her.

The ‘xx’ I grant you, are absurd. But posters are saying this is a ‘thing’ amongst the young.

MarleneandBoycie · 30/11/2019 07:00

Are you quite elderly OP? Only where have you been that you don't know people put xx at the end of messages now and it means nothing. There is nothing to suggest she is encouraging him, but way to go with the victim blaming fella.

StreetwiseHercules · 30/11/2019 07:28

What a creep.

Brimful · 30/11/2019 07:36

Read the short story 'Cat Person'.

Really highlights the female pleasing ideology we have; essentially we try to please men because we are vulnerable to them and fear for ourselves. So turning them down must be done gently and nicely, for our protection.

She repeatedly says she's not interested. The content reads "No, but please don't turn on me."

ToTheRegimentIWishIWasThere · 30/11/2019 08:13

The xx definitely muddy the water. I'da basically told him to do one and threaten to show the texts to his wife. What an odious creep

And then find yourself quite swiftly out on your arse, discredited and without a reference? Your reputation twisted and sullied so you're going to find it difficult to work in the same industry because you can't work with the same people without them having been tainted by the gossip? (Whatever gossip he decides to spread about you.)

(Not picking on you specifically Vulpine Smile )

Bluntness100 · 30/11/2019 08:16

Some people will do anything to blame the woman. If there is a way to twist it and blame the woman and absolve the man they will.

She's clearly saying no. Every step of the way she's saying no. There is no ambiguity there. How any one can then see that and think "no means yes" is beyond me.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 30/11/2019 08:40

Sadly, Bluntness I think that many people still want to find the slut and shame her.

Poor old Dave never knew what hit him. He had no chance!

Phsaw!

JamieVardysHavingAParty · 30/11/2019 08:52

She's very definitely saying no, while trying to remain on a cordial footing.

The one that goes something like "I don't know but you are so there's no need to explore that xx" is very firm. I bet she was quaking in her boots right after she'd sent that, wondering if she'd been too harsh.

Bluntness100 · 30/11/2019 09:44

Exactly, she's trying to soften it because she wants to not alienate him, but she's clearly and utterly absolutely saying no. Every single time.

It's the old no means yes, she was asking for it, she was leading him on, can't be his fault nonsense.

JamieVardysHavingAParty · 30/11/2019 14:20

You can practically see her thankfully texting a laugh at his joke in the next text, grateful that he's taking the rejection without getting angry.

ActualFemale · 30/11/2019 14:44

I'd say the opposite. She's clearly rejecting him and he's deliberately ignoring it.

He's using words like "stubborn" to describe her and "persistent" to describe himself.

He mentions he's been persistent for three years? Does that mean he's been pursuing a sexual relationship with her for that long? (Only the screenshots showed up when I clicked the link)

BennyTheBall · 30/11/2019 14:47

A better rejection would have been to not engage.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 30/11/2019 14:51

A better rejection would have been to not engage. Even better would be he didn't even start....

fernandoanddenise · 30/11/2019 14:53

OK Boomer Wink

Bluntness100 · 30/11/2019 14:54

A better rejection would have been to not engage. Even better would be he didn't even start...

Exactly. Even better if he understood no meant no and stopped after the first rejection instead of hounding her.

MitziK · 30/11/2019 15:14

He refers to a proposition of some kind (again). She says jokingly that she's used to him coming onto her.

He wants to kiss her (and get laid). She says it's a bad idea (ie, no).

He asks would she do it if he wasn't married. She says he is married, so trying not to say 'Eww, no!'.

He complains she isn't flattering him enough in her refusal. She says sorry, hoping to defuse it.

He refers to taking her out(?) and making her wear a particular type of dress (let me guess, revealing and providing him with titillation and easy access to her body?). She doesn't respond but has to say 'something' - in this case Hmmm.

He then says he's been propositioning/harassing her for three years. She points out that he's been married for longer than that.

He then refuses to accept yet another 'No'. She responds with 'No'.

He then continues trying to blackmail/coerce/manipulate her into saying yes and the pestering continues off the image.

It's textbook harassment when you have a lot to lose from pissing off a lecherous boss.

The article has been taken down, so I presume his lawyers are getting involved.

7salmonswimming · 30/11/2019 15:55

As I said in my first post, I don't believe that she was leading him on at all. She was very clear that she wouldn't sleep with him because he was married.

But it has to be pointed out that he was her boss for the first 5 months that they knew each other. That's how they met. She didn't work for him after those 5 months, but he could still have been helpful to her career advancement. (Article since removed, that's what I read the day the story broke).

For me, no amount of career advancement would be worth putting up with someone who doesn't understand "NO. Just FUCK OFF and stop pestering me" for 2.5 years. I think most women would feel that way. So I wonder why she maintained contact with him. I'm not implying anything; I'm wondering. It's likely, to my mind, that in those 2.5years he probably did do something to help her professionally. That would explain why he "persisted" with someone who told him no for 2.5 years, and she put up with someone who leched at her for 2.5 years. That doesn't mean there is some quid pro quo, before anyone shouts me out (other than, perhaps, a career-based favor in return, irrespective of seniority). So, I think it's likely, that he has been of use to her at some point in those 3 years. And so, it is what it is. The "bargain" is that he tries it on, she rejects him, he probably helps her out here and there and in return she puts up with his lecherous ways while keeping him at arm's length. Somehow it came to a head, for whatever reason, and she outed him.

It's a fine line to tread. His behavior was undeniably gross, ugly - just ugh. Whatever his behavior, though, why didn't she just walk away the first time she had to tell him to fuck off? She owed him nothing after 5 months.

Inebriati · 30/11/2019 16:01

Its not just about no career advancement; its also about mitigating the real risk of being blacklisted, of being slagged off to all and sundry behind your back, of having lies made up about you.

Its also about the very real phenomena that the majority of women do not know how to be assertive, to say 'no', or to stand up to anyone perceived to be in authority especially men. They really don't.