# Nigella Lawson attacked by husband Charles Saatchi in public



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 16, 2013)

No one intervenes. But the Sunday Mirror prints the photos. Fucking hell 

She gets strangled by her husband in a restaurant but no one steps in - they just take pics. Then the Sunday papers decide to put her on the front cover - bunch of cunts, the lot of em.

(It's in the Sunday Mirror/People - don't want to link to the pics)


----------



## UhOhSeven (Jun 16, 2013)

You can't blame photographers for taking pictures -- that's their job. And anyway, even if they had wanted to intervene, they would never have been allowed in the restaurant.

There is only one person in the wrong here, and that's Saatchi.


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2013)

Those pics 

They sanctimoniously point the finger at other diners that didn't intervene - yet the photographer didn't either. Photo after photo; and did nothing, nothing apart from recording then publicising the incident. Sickening.


----------



## gabi (Jun 16, 2013)

Thats awful. I dont like either of them. But there is never any excuse for domestic violence. Are the cops looking at those pictures?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 16, 2013)

No-one seemed to have called the police - or at least the article doesn't mention it, and I think they would have if they'd appeared. Disgraceful. 

I hope he gets banged up for this, I really do.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jun 16, 2013)

Hmmm...


----------



## gabi (Jun 16, 2013)

Cant any member of the public call the police and report it and they have to act? Thats happened at football games when officials have failed to act on racist abuse etc.


----------



## pesh (Jun 16, 2013)

and he seemed like such a nice man.
she should have stuck a fork in his eye.


----------



## gabi (Jun 16, 2013)

she's no saint herself.<removed>


----------



## moonsi til (Jun 16, 2013)

gabi said:


> she's no saint herself. leaving her last husband for saatchi days before he died of terminal cancer. but regardless. domestic violence, no.


 

I don't recall that she left her husband (John Diamond) before he died. I read his newspaper column about his throat cancer and recall them as a solid couple. At the time I first came across his column my sister was diagnosed with cancer and to my own dying day I don't think I will ever forget his name.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jun 16, 2013)

gabi said:


> <removed>.


 
Absolute rubbish. Where have you got this from?


----------



## RedDragon (Jun 16, 2013)

Yeah, she didn't ditch Diamond but her friends now have all the evidence for persuading her to ditch Saatchi.


----------



## Chairman Meow (Jun 16, 2013)

Didn't John Diamond encourage her to find a new husband when he knew he was dying? She definitely stayed with him until he died though, I was a huge fan of his column.

I went right off Saatchi when I read that he doesn't really like her food, he would prefer a bowl of cereal. I wonder how she feels about his chain smoking with so many of her loved ones dying of cancer? I can't say I'm surprised that he's a nasty piece of work.


----------



## Thora (Jun 16, 2013)

A thread about DV and within 10 posts there's an attack on her character   I'm not saying she deserved it, but...


----------



## killer b (Jun 16, 2013)

Gabi innit. He's a bit of a cunt.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 16, 2013)

who are these people?


----------



## Geri (Jun 16, 2013)

Looking at the pictures I wonder how obvious it would have been to the other diners. It's not like he had two hands around her throat and she was screaming the place down. It looks as if they are in quite a secluded corner and the view is obscured by a big plant and some kind of burner. Not very pleasant viewing.


----------



## Geri (Jun 16, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> who are these people?


 
Two rich Tories.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 16, 2013)

I could offer to put her up inn the spare room if that's of any help to her.Don't want her messing about in the kitchen though.


----------



## gabi (Jun 16, 2013)

killer b said:


> Gabi innit. He's a bit of a cunt.


 
Sorry? Fuck you. No idea who you are but please don't interact with me again you fucking cunt.


----------



## CosmikRoger (Jun 16, 2013)

Tory cunt fights tory cunt, everyones a winner.
If we could find some way of getting every tory in the world together in one room and then let them all slug it out until the last one is left standing the world would be a better place.
Especially if we string the last one up at the nearest lampost.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 16, 2013)

What's the evidence for Nigella being a Tory?

And Saatchi was a hired gun for the Conservatives thirty years ago, rather than a staunch ideological fellow-traveller. She's a celebrity food enthusiast and he's a collector of meretricious art. It seems very odd to fixate on supposed Toryhood.


----------



## kenny g (Jun 16, 2013)

It would be nice to see Saatchi hounded 'till his death. He is obviously worried about his reputation so let's hope it remains in tatters.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> They sanctimoniously point the finger at other diners that didn't intervene - yet the photographer didn't either.



Bystander effect, innit.


----------



## killer b (Jun 16, 2013)

gabi said:


> Sorry? Fuck you. No idea who you are but please don't interact with me again you fucking cunt.


 
i wasn't interacting with you.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2013)

casual misogyny rears it's head again


----------



## bignose1 (Jun 16, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I could offer to put her up inn the spare room if that's of any help to her.Don't want her messing about in the kitchen though.


----------



## killer b (Jun 16, 2013)

is a thread discussing the public assault of a woman really the appropriate place to make off-colour jokes about her? come on...


----------



## bignose1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> What's the evidence for Nigella being a Tory?
> 
> And Saatchi was a hired gun for the Conservatives thirty years ago, rather than a staunch ideological fellow-traveller. She's a celebrity food enthusiast and he's a collector of meretricious art. It seems very odd to fixate on supposed Toryhood.


 
Charles Saatchi held a door open for me when I went to a meeting at their offices in Charlotte Street.


----------



## bignose1 (Jun 16, 2013)

killer b said:


> is a thread discussing the public assault of a woman really the appropriate place to make off-colour jokes about her? come on...


 
Can I say Ive had a crush for ages.

(previous post removed)


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Bystander effect, innit.


Yes, for the other diners (if they realised, as Geri pointed out). The photographer knew what was going on though, and I don't buy the "just doing their job which takes priority" line.


----------



## Geri (Jun 16, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> What's the evidence for Nigella being a Tory?
> 
> And Saatchi was a hired gun for the Conservatives thirty years ago, rather than a staunch ideological fellow-traveller. She's a celebrity food enthusiast and he's a collector of meretricious art. It seems very odd to fixate on supposed Toryhood.


 
Oh yes, sorry. I expect they are both card carrying members of the IWCA.


----------



## grit (Jun 16, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> It seems very odd to fixate on supposed Toryhood.


 

You must be new here.....


----------



## 8115 (Jun 16, 2013)

I like Nigella. I hope she kicks him to the kerb.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2013)

Odd that being a "a hired gun for the Conservatives" doesn't mean anything to some posters, doesn't tell us anything about the person and their values at all.


----------



## snadge (Jun 16, 2013)

DV is DV, doesn't matter how much money or political persuasion people have.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 16, 2013)

snadge said:


> DV is DV, doesn't matter how much money or political persuasion people have.


 

Unless it's a neighbour who may be from a working class background threatening a poster in front of their kids. Then everyone starts screaming how classist it is to condemn the cunt. Hypocrites.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Unless it's a neighbour who may be from a working class background threatening a poster in front of their kids. Then everyone starts screaming how classist it is to condemn the cunt. Hypocrites.


 
Name the hypocrites. In fact, point out the DV in the first incident.


----------



## snadge (Jun 16, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Unless it's a neighbour who may be from a working class background threatening a poster in front of their kids. Then everyone starts screaming how classist it is to condemn the cunt. Hypocrites.


 
There was no domestic violence at all in that incident, in fact it was not domestic at all, domestic means in the home.

It was an attempt to garner sympathy from someone who hasn't the guts to stand up for himself to a bully and tried to denigrate the bully by being classist and in reality pretty obnoxious.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 16, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Unless it's a neighbour who may be from a working class background threatening a poster in front of their kids. Then everyone starts screaming how classist it is to condemn the cunt. Hypocrites.


 

Except that isn't domestic abuse.  That's possibly threatening or harassing behaviour, could be common assault or whatever. 

Domestic abuse is quite specific; it's emotional, physical, sexual, financial or psychological abuse perpetrated by one person to another who are, or have been within an intimate relationship with one another.

If you twat your neighbour it is not DV (not that I think twatting your neighbour is necessarily acceptable behaviour).


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 16, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Unless it's a neighbour who may be from a working class background threatening a poster in front of their kids. Then everyone starts screaming how classist it is to condemn the cunt. Hypocrites.


 

how was that situation even on the same planet as DV? It was nieghbours beef, not wifebeating? I fail to see the connection


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 16, 2013)

snadge said:


> There was no domestic violence at all in that incident, in fact it was not domestic at all, domestic means in the home.
> 
> It was an attempt to garner sympathy from someone who hasn't the guts to stand up for himself to a bully and tried to denigrate the bully by being classist and in reality pretty obnoxious.


 

It doesn't need to happen inside the home for it to be counted as DV.  Many behaviours perpetrated happen while the couple are out and about.


----------



## snadge (Jun 16, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> It doesn't need to happen inside the home for it to be counted as DV. Many behaviours perpetrated happen while the couple are out and about.


 
Okay I worded that strangely, you explained perfectly.



> Domestic abuse is quite specific; it's emotional, physical, sexual, financial or psychological abuse perpetrated by one person to another who are, or have been within an intimate relationship with one another.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 16, 2013)

UhOhSeven said:


> You can't blame photographers for taking pictures -- that's their job. And anyway, even if they had wanted to intervene, they would never have been allowed in the restaurant.
> 
> There is only one person in the wrong here, and that's Saatchi.


I don't agree - anyone who saw it should have called the police. No excuses. Even the photographer could have called the police (and prob would have got a pic of Saatchi getting arrested  )


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2013)

I don't see how being a photographer absolves you of the responsibility of being a decent human being


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 16, 2013)

The correlation is pretty reliable, though.


----------



## Kidda (Jun 16, 2013)

SmellyGusset said:


> Tory cunt fights tory cunt, everyones a winner.
> If we could find some way of getting every tory in the world together in one room and then let them all slug it out until the last one is left standing the world would be a better place.
> Especially if we string the last one up at the nearest lampost.


 
Oh that's alright then, tory husbands beat your wives (aslong as they are card carrying tories) because they don't have the same human rights as the rest of us. 

Can we have a clear policy on who is and who isn't able to beat their partners as that will make it a lot easier dealing with the victims. Thanks.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 16, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> how was that situation even on the same planet as DV? It was nieghbours beef, not wifebeating? I fail to see the connection



The V.


----------



## snadge (Jun 16, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> The V.


 

Hamster eating aliens?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2013)

completely off topic but i can't take someone with the name "smelly gusset" seriously at all


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 16, 2013)

snadge said:


> Hamster eating aliens?



They were lizards too, remember?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> completely off topic but i can't take someone with the name "smelly gusset" seriously at all


 
Says frogwoman


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 16, 2013)

Fair point


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> completely off topic but i can't take someone with the name "smelly gusset" seriously at all



Its an anagram of sells me guts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 16, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> The V.


 

there was no V in sorearms case. Threats of V, but no actual V. Possibly the situations are on planet V then but different continents apart


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 16, 2013)

gabi said:


> she's no saint herself. leaving her last husband for saatchi days before he died of terminal cancer. but regardless. domestic violence, no.


 
TBF, after he died, Diamond's family defended Lawson, saying that her getting into a relationship straight away was in accordance with Diamond's wishes.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 16, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> there was no V in sorearms case. Threats of V, but no actual V. Possibly the situations are on planet V then but different continents apart



Spacist!

Threats of V constitute DV if they are D.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 16, 2013)

pesh said:


> and he seemed like such a nice man.
> she should have stuck a fork in his eye.


 
Tory and ad exec.
Yep, a very nice man!


----------



## snadge (Jun 16, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Spacist!
> 
> Threats of V constitute DV if they are D.


 

It wasn't domestic and there was NO violence, what is the matter with you?


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 16, 2013)

snadge said:


> It wasn't domestic and there was NO violence, what is the matter with you?



I think a long time poster deserves a better response from the community than a minor celebrity chef to issues of threat and violence.

That's all. Anyway, side issue. Carry on regardless.


----------



## snadge (Jun 16, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> I think a long time poster deserves a better response from the community than a minor celebrity chef to issues of threat and violence.
> 
> That's all. Anyway, side issue. Carry on regardless.


 
So being a long time member of a community allows them to be classist and sneering with no pull ups and a public display of DV shouldn't be condemned because they are rich and famous and they are not a member of said community?


Once again I will ask, what is wrong with you?


----------



## Kidda (Jun 16, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> I think a long time poster deserves a better response from the community than a minor celebrity chef to issues of threat and violence.
> 
> That's all. Anyway, side issue. Carry on regardless.


 
You may want to read this back then go away and have a word with yourself.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 16, 2013)

snadge said:


> So being a long time member of a community allows them to be classist and sneering with no pull ups and a public display of DV shouldn't be condemned because they are rich and famous and they are not a member of said community?
> 
> 
> Once again I will ask, what is wrong with you?



That poster was asking for advice and some people chose to pull him up over an angry comment rather than concentrate on the fact that he had been threatened.

We are not aware of the circumstances of this situation with Lawson and while its obviously violent we have no knowledge of the backstory.

So not only does that seem obviously sexist... but at the same time shows how eager some members of this community are to attack others  for little reason.

Ok? Now as you were.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 16, 2013)

UhOhSeven said:


> *You can't blame photographers for taking* *pictures* -- that's their job. And anyway, even if they had wanted to intervene, they would never have been allowed in the restaurant.
> 
> There is only one person in the wrong here, and that's Saatchi.


 
Nah, that's bollox - You're a human being first and a photographer second. The decent thing would've been to step in. And twat Saatchi with  a camera.


----------



## The Boy (Jun 16, 2013)

Has anyone said "Nigealla, phwoar" yet?  Would seem appropriate with some of the comments near top of the thread.  

Anyway, the pics look like pap shots to me, so you can't expect any better from the photographer, really.


----------



## snadge (Jun 16, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> That poster was asking for advice and some people chose to pull him up over an angry comment rather than concentrate on the fact that he had been threatened.


 
An angry comment, did we follow the same thread, it was full of him sneering and using his so called privilege to get a favored result of the attending police after snitching on the neighbor, banding people of lower classes together as scum.



Kizmet said:


> We are not aware of the circumstances of this situation with Lawson and while its obviously violent we have no knowledge of the backstory.


 
So it's perfectly acceptable to strangle your partner if you have a reason?



Kizmet said:


> So not only does that seem obviously sexist... but at the same time shows how eager some members of this community are to attack others for little reason.
> 
> Ok? Now as you were.


 
How is it sexist?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 16, 2013)

Geri said:


> Oh yes, sorry. I expect they are both card carrying members of the IWCA.


 
What does that matter one way or the other?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 16, 2013)

SmellyGusset said:


> Tory cunt fights tory cunt, everyones a winner.
> If we could find some way of getting every tory in the world together in one room and then let them all slug it out until the last one is left standing the world would be a better place.
> Especially if we string the last one up at the nearest lampost.


 
That's the spirit


----------



## shygirl (Jun 16, 2013)

There a photo from April showing Saatchi (again in a restaurant) with his hand firmly over Nigella's mouth, shutting her up.   Its probably been going on for a long time and, if he can do that in a restaurant, what might he be doing behind closed doors?  I hope the police act on reports of this latest violence.


----------



## Callie (Jun 16, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> That poster was asking for advice and some people chose to pull him up over an angry comment rather than concentrate on the fact that he had been threatened.


 
were they? slight derail but that thread didnt not come across to me as asking for advice.


on topic:  a picture tells a thousand words. they also sell a thousand papers too. i find it a little odd how people are so very quick to run with the tabloid portrayed story off the back of a picture where theres a bloke with his hand on a lady's neck. anything could have been happening couldnt it?


----------



## xenon (Jun 16, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Nah, that's bollox - You're a human being first and a photographer second. The decent thing would've been to step in. And twat Saatchi with  a camera.



This is the dilemma journalists face all the time in war zones, facing scenes of total poverty and alike. Being behind the camera probably puts you in some other space, not quite there but not removed either.

Reminds me of some sketch. Camera man filming elderly woman getting mugged and beaten up, whilst decrying. Look at that, no one's stepping in. literally no one watching this is going to her assistance. What a sick society, etc.

The other diners should have phoned the Police or preferably scuered Saatchi.


----------



## Nice one (Jun 16, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> What's the evidence for Nigella being a Tory?


 
her dad probably


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 16, 2013)

xenon said:


> *This is the dilemma journalists face all the time in war* *zones, facing scenes of total poverty and alike.* Being behind the camera probably puts you in some other space, not quite there but not removed either.
> 
> Reminds me of some sketch. Camera man filming elderly woman getting mugged and beaten up, whilst decrying. Look at that, no one's stepping in. literally no one watching this is going to her assistance. What a sick society, etc.
> 
> The other diners should have phoned the Police or preferably scuered Sachi.


 
AFIAC it's not a dilemma. Being a member of a profession doesn't absolve you from doing what needs to be done if you're a decent person.

"I have to remain impartial in order to document what's happening" - Why? Precious twats.


----------



## moonsi til (Jun 16, 2013)

I don't agree with the photographer having to intervene. I admit that due to the celebrity element it makes it murkier however I subscribe to photo journalists being able to take photos unburdened by needing to help as then they would need to put the camera down and then where would we be? So many atrocious acts would be un-photographed if this were the case.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 16, 2013)

i'd rather an atrocious act was prevented rather than photographed. that seems to make the most sense to me.


----------



## xenon (Jun 16, 2013)

Because you can't jump in and save everyone. You hear this a lot - the psycholological distancing front line journalists asitwere, work under. yeah I know  a posh restaurant isn't exactly Hons. But there's probably the same observer mindset.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 16, 2013)

Was she in a relationship with Saatchi when she wore that all over swinsuit that time? Might explain a few things.


----------



## laptop (Jun 16, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> i'd rather an atrocious act was prevented rather than photographed. that seems to make the most sense to me.


 
So should John Harris have put his camera down and twatted the horse?





It's not clear-cut, is it?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> Those pics
> 
> They sanctimoniously point the finger at other diners that didn't intervene - yet the photographer didn't either. Photo after photo; and did nothing, nothing apart from recording then publicising the incident. Sickening.


 
Re: other diners - it's hard to say from those photos what the time duration was.  I was in a pub where someone got attacked not so long ago and by the time anyone had worked out what was happening it was all done with - it's not like people in a fancy restaurant are going to be in a vigilant state of mind.


----------



## moonsi til (Jun 16, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> i'd rather an atrocious act was prevented rather than photographed. that seems to make the most sense to me.



But photographing does in time prevent it. This story looks like DV and would have much less impact without the photos. They are all vile but the one with him prodding her nose resonates the most with me.


----------



## laptop (Jun 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> Re: other diners - it's hard to say from those photos what the time duration was.


 
The _People_ has edited the sequence since I first looked. I'd still say not much more than a minute of throttling. Pix taken on auto.



8ball said:


> I was in a pub where someone got attacked not so long ago and by the time anyone had worked out what was happening it was all done with - it's not like people in a fancy restaurant are going to be in a vigilant state of mind.


 
Could be...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 16, 2013)

Photograpers are just outside observers of life, whether it's an incident of domestic violence or a group of workers partying that they sell to the rightwing media allowing their public naming and shaming, the photographer has no moral duty other than the taking of an interesting snap


----------



## IC3D (Jun 16, 2013)

gabi said:


> she's no saint herself. leaving her last husband for saatchi days before he died of terminal cancer.


 
What a load of bollocks, nasty.


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> Re: other diners - it's hard to say from those photos what the time duration was.  I was in a pub where someone got attacked not so long ago and by the time anyone had worked out what was happening it was all done with - it's not like people in a fancy restaurant are going to be in a vigilant state of mind.


I can see the argument/pov for none of the diners or the photographer directly intervening, for a variety of reasons. What pisses me off is the sanctimonious finger pointing rather than just sticking with challenging Saatchi.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 16, 2013)

laptop said:


> I'd still say not much more than a minute of throttling...


 
Well, if it was something like a full minute I'd expect some definite intervention, most likely from the staff (if I was there I'd probably be trying to not stare at the celebrity couple to give them some space) - I was thinking a few seconds when I said that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> casual misogyny rears it's head again


casual misuse of apostrophes rears its head again


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 16, 2013)

moonsi til said:


> But photographing does in time prevent it. This story looks like DV and would have much less impact without the photos. They are all vile but the one with him prodding her nose resonates the most with me.


 
It's the hand around the throat that gets me, it's probably not the first time he's done it. If there's publicity he might not do it again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> Well, if it was something like a full minute I'd expect some definite intervention, most likely from the staff (if I was there I'd probably be trying to not stare at the celebrity couple to give them some space) - I was thinking a few seconds when I said that.


 
given the length of time it can take some restaurant staff to come over with the bill - when you want to give them money - expecting them to intervene in a domestic is i think not likely unless knives are used or fists start flying.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's the hand around the throat that gets me, it's probably not the first time he's done it. If there's publicity he might not do it again.


 
yes, he seemed to find her throat too easily for it to be the first time.


----------



## laptop (Jun 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> Well, if it was something like a full minute I'd expect some definite intervention, most likely from the staff (if I was there I'd probably be trying to not stare at the celebrity couple to give them some space) - I was thinking a few seconds when I said that.


 
A minute isn't long to switch your attention from taking an order / your conversation / ignoring the slebs. It may have been less: I didn't want to claim I _knew_ it was less.

With any luck the RAW image files will be presented in court and the time-stamps read out...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

laptop said:


> A minute isn't long to switch your attention from taking an order / your conversation / ignoring the slebs. It may have been less: I didn't want to claim I _knew_ it was less.
> 
> With any luck the RAW image files will be presented in court and the time-stamps read out...


 
do you think saatchi and lawson would eat in a restaurant which wasn't well served by cctv?


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 16, 2013)

has this tragic waste of skin and organs been arrested yet?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> has this tragic waste of skin and organs been arrested yet?


 
fyi: skin is an organ.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jun 16, 2013)

This thread is just lovely, isn't it?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> I can see the argument/pov for none of the diners or the photographer directly intervening, for a variety of reasons. What pisses me off is the sanctimonious finger pointing rather than just sticking with challenging Saatchi.


 
The usual twitter thing where people make everything about themselves and fantasise about what they would have done had they been there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> The usual twitter thing where people make everything about themselves and fantasise about what they would have done had they been there.


 
"hold me back"


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> This thread is just lovely, isn't it?


 
no one comes to urban for lovely threads


----------



## laptop (Jun 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> do you think saatchi and lawson would eat in a restaurant which wasn't well served by cctv?


 
No idea. I was focusing on the published images.



Now I do think about it, if I were designing a restaurant for slime like Saatchi, I'd advertise that there was no CCTV and that the waiters didn't understand any English that wasn't on the menu. Discreet lunches, and stuff.


----------



## IC3D (Jun 16, 2013)

I hope John Diamonds son does the right thing and lay the cunt out


----------



## 8ball (Jun 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> given the length of time it can take some restaurant staff to come over with the bill - when you want to give them money - expecting them to intervene in a domestic is i think not likely unless knives are used or fists start flying.


 
This isn't your run of the mill sparsely-staffed eatery, though.

As laptop says, though, the restaurant CCTV will tell the tale re: the duration.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

laptop said:


> No idea. I was focusing on the published images.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I do think about it, if I were designing a restaurant for slime like Saatchi, I'd advertise that there was no CCTV and that the waiters didn't understand any English that wasn't on the menu. Discreet lunches, and stuff.


 
discreet lunches and noisy arguments with waiters


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> given the length of time it can take some restaurant staff to come over with the bill - when you want to give them money - expecting them to intervene in a domestic is i think not likely unless knives are used or fists start flying.


 
Impossıble to fınd the staff these days eh what?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 16, 2013)

laptop said:


> So should John Harris have put his camera down and twatted the horse?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
No, but he could/should've dived in and pushed the person in the pic who's about to be twatted out of the way of the twatting. But instead chose to take a fucking _photograph._ The prick.

E2a - So yeah, it is clear cut.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Impossıble to fınd the staff these days eh what?


 
you know they're there, it's not so much finding the staff it's them finding you which can be the problem. restaurants seem to put too few people out to wait.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you know they're there, it's not so much finding the staff it's them finding you which can be the problem. restaurants seem to put too few people out to wait.


 
It's a disgrace. I trust you deduct an approprıate sum from theır tıp to teach them better manners?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 16, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> No, but he could/should've dived in and pushed the person in the pic who's about to be twatted out of the way of the twatting. But instead chose to take a fucking _photograph._ The prick.


 
Photographic/video evidence of police brutality, must never cease.


----------



## laptop (Jun 16, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> No, but he could/should've dived in and pushed the person in the pic who's about to be twatted out of the way of the twatting. But instead chose to take a fucking _photograph._ The prick.


 
Erm... do you recognise the photo?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 16, 2013)

laptop said:


> Erm... do you recognise the photo?


 
I've seen it before. But beyond that have no idea where/when it is? Have I made a dick of myself? If I have can you provide some background info for the pic? Thanks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> It's a disgrace. I trust you deduct an approprıate sum from theır tıp to teach them better manners?


 
unlike you i recognise that waiters and waitresses work hard. so no, i don't emulate your practice.


----------



## snadge (Jun 16, 2013)

For a start, all these people complaining that the photographer doesn't get invloved.

How fucking near do you think the photographer is in the Saatchi one? It has been taken with a high powered telephoto, that is obvious, the one with the copper also, you can tell by the DOF.



> No, but he could/should've dived in and pushed the person in the pic who's about to be twatted out of the way of the twatting. But instead chose to take a fucking _photograph._ The prick.


 
He would have had to sprint 50 meters to do that! Think before you spout.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Have I made a dick of myself?


 
yes. your formerly good reputation's taken something of a battering over the past couple of weeks, which is a pity.


----------



## laptop (Jun 16, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> I've seen it before. But beyond that have no idea where/when it is? Have I made a dick of myself?


 
I think so.



Frances Lengel said:


> If I have can you provide some background info for the pic? Thanks.


 
Click on it...


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> unlike you i recognise that waiters and waitresses work hard. so no, i don't emulate your practice.


 
I have no practıce.  Unlıke you, I never eat ın restaurants.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jun 16, 2013)

Not sure you should condemn the photographer before finding out how close he was to the victim. The pic makes him appear close, but with lens foreshortening and/or zoom he could have been much too far away to outpace the horse.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 16, 2013)

gabi said:


> she's no saint herself. leaving her last husband for saatchi days before he died of terminal cancer. but regardless. domestic violence, no.


 
No she didn't, she was with him until he died.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

gabi said:


> she's no saint herself. leaving her last husband for saatchi days before he died of terminal cancer. but regardless. domestic violence, no.


 
twat


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 16, 2013)

laptop said:


> I think so.
> 
> 
> 
> Click on it...


 
Ok, I just have clicked on it - I had it wrong. In a pretty big way. It simply didn't occur to me that the photographer could've been far away. You wer right in your other post when you said it isn't always clear cut.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Ok, I just have clicked on it - I had it wrong. In a pretty big way. It simply didn't occur to me that the photographer could've been far away. You wer right in your other post when you said it isn't always clear cut.


 
some sort of grovelling apology would seem appropriate at this point


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 16, 2013)

Without pictures this would have been referred to as "an argument" in some smug celeb gossip column at best, or probably just not at all.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> some sort of grovelling apology would seem appropriate at this point


 
Alright, don't milk it.

*looks at floor* ...sorry.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 16, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I have no practıce.  Unlıke you, I never eat ın restaurants.


Go away please.


----------



## andysays (Jun 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Odd that being a "a hired gun for the Conservatives" doesn't mean anything to some posters, doesn't tell us anything about the person and their values at all.


 
It clearly tells us some things, but I'm not necessarily sure it tells us anything about their tendencies towards DV


----------



## Firky (Jun 16, 2013)

Domestic abuse seems so common, I can't really say I am surprised at this story (always knew Saatchi was a horrible bloke). I've had friends who were in abusive relationships, emotionally and physically. It's everywhere and sadly tolerated, excused and even shrugged off (see Gabi's posts). Fucked up.



Citizen66 said:


> Bystander effect, innit.


 
Yep, always makes me think of Kitty Genovese; one of the most baffling things I've ever read about human psychology.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2013)

andysays said:


> It clearly tells us some things, but I'm not necessarily sure it tells us anything about their tendencies towards DV


 
No one said that it did. I was commenting on Silas' view that his tory-work was somehow neutral. Cheers for the lovely smiley.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jun 16, 2013)

It's depressing to see people in this thread snidely trying to excuse Saatchi's behaviour by slagging off his victim. There can be no justification for assaulting someone, except in self-defence. End of.  Here's an old joke for you twats: what do you say to a woman with two black eyes? Nothing, you've already told her twice. Ha ha. Did you laugh the first time you heard that? If you did, fuck off to another board.


----------



## Firky (Jun 16, 2013)

Jesus Christ, the dickhead's are out in force this afternoon and it's always the same names.

Saatchi could have been defending himself so that makes it OK.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> It's depressing to see people in this thread snidely trying to excuse Saatchi's behaviour by slagging off his victim. There can be no justification for assaulting someone, except in self-defence. End of. Here's an old joke for you twats: what do you say to a woman with two black eyes? Nothing, you've already told her twice. Ha ha. Did you laugh the first time you heard that? If you did, fuck off to another board.


 
right, so if i see a woman being battered and i am in no danger you think i should just walk by. are you sure of your point?


----------



## andysays (Jun 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No one said that it did. I was commenting on Silas' view that his tory-work was somehow neutral. Cheers for the lovely smiley.


 
Not neutral (not neutral at all) but not really relevant to this incident


----------



## wayward bob (Jun 16, 2013)

on the subject of intervening in domestic situations there was an incident last week that shook me up rather and left me wondering whether i should have acted differently. i was walking to the park and there was a man and a pregnant woman in the street ahead of me having an argument (i didn't hear the content, had my ipod on). i made it obvious that i'd seen them and was watching them, in case she wanted to appeal for help. as i passed she started hitting him at which point i figured neither of them would exactly appreciate an intervention. as it was i was alone and didn't have my phone so i have no idea what i could have practically done to help.

i wonder what other people would have done/said in that situation?


----------



## Balbi (Jun 16, 2013)

Firky said:


> Domestic abuse seems so common, I can't really say I am surprised at this story (always knew Saatchi was a horrible bloke). I've had friends who were in abusive relationships, emotionally and physically. It's everywhere and sadly tolerated, excused and even shrugged off (see Gabi's posts). Fucked up.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, always makes me think of Kitty Genovese; one of the most baffling things I've ever read about human psychology.


 
People are genuinely weird, and odd and all kinds of things that we tell ourselves we're not, including ultimately self-preservational.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

wayward bob said:


> on the subject of intervening in domestic situations there was an incident last week that shook me up rather and left me wondering whether i should have acted differently. i was walking to the park and there was a man and a pregnant woman in the street ahead of me having an argument (i didn't hear the content, had my ipod on). i made it obvious that i'd seen them and was watching them, in case she wanted to appeal for help. as i passed she started hitting him at which point i figured neither of them would exactly appreciate an intervention. as it was i was alone and didn't have my phone so i have no idea what i could have practically done to help.
> 
> i wonder what other people would have done/said in that situation?


 
'do you want a hand, luv'


----------



## wayward bob (Jun 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> 'do you want a hand, luv'


 
she was hitting him, i didn;t see him raise a hand to her or retaliate.


----------



## Firky (Jun 16, 2013)

Balbi said:


> People are genuinely weird, and odd and all kinds of things that we tell ourselves we're not, including ultimately self-preservational.


 
Yup, I was witness to some physical abuse a few years ago. A fist to the face of my friend by her OH whilst I was stood there. I froze, I had never seen anything like it before in my life. Time seemed to slow down then suddenly it was all over and I was... well shocked and my friend was indifferent about it. That replayed in my head for years, felt so guilty that I didn't do anything, that I didn't act, that I didn't intervene. It's easy to say you'd do X, Y, Z if you saw someone being subject to such abuse but when it happens it is entirely different.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 16, 2013)

Firky said:


> Yup, I was witness to some physical abuse a few years ago. A fist to the face of my friend by her OH whilst I was stood there. I froze, I had never seen anything like it before in my life. Time seemed to slow down then suddenly it was all over and I was... well shocked and my friend was indifferent about it. That replayed in my head for years, felt so guilty that I didn't do anything, that I didn't act, that I didn't intervene. It's easy to say you'd do X, Y, Z if you saw someone being subject to such abuse but when it happens it is entirely different.


 
Been there. It's fucking weird.


----------



## Firky (Jun 16, 2013)

It was horrible and it deeply upset me, so I can't even begin to imagine what it feels like to be the person who's abused (don't like to use the word victim). 

Anyway, it is a lovely day so I'm out to make the most of it and visit the old man for father's day.

TTFN


----------



## Part 2 (Jun 16, 2013)

wayward bob said:


> on the subject of intervening in domestic situations there was an incident last week that shook me up rather and left me wondering whether i should have acted differently. i was walking to the park and there was a man and a pregnant woman in the street ahead of me having an argument (i didn't hear the content, had my ipod on). i made it obvious that i'd seen them and was watching them, in case she wanted to appeal for help. as i passed she started hitting him at which point i figured neither of them would exactly appreciate an intervention. as it was i was alone and didn't have my phone so i have no idea what i could have practically done to help.
> 
> i wonder what other people would have done/said in that situation?


 
Potentially you'd be branded a nosy fucker and told to mind your own business.


----------



## marty21 (Jun 16, 2013)

gabi said:


> she's no saint herself. leaving her last husband for saatchi days before he died of terminal cancer. but regardless. domestic violence, no.


bollocks


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

wayward bob said:


> she was hitting him, i didn;t see him raise a hand to her or retaliate.


 
you asked what other people would have done, which is necessarily different to what you did yourself.


----------



## toggle (Jun 16, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Without pictures this would have been referred to as "an argument" in some smug celeb gossip column at best, or probably just not at all.


 
and she now has evidence that he is confident enough in being abusive towards her to act this way in public, and that this has been going on a while. she now has evidence beyond he said/she said. which is probably worth more long term than anyone stopping him.


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jun 16, 2013)

What I found moderately interesting about the photos is that in at least two of them, while he has his left hand on her throat her own hand is resting over his right.  That's not the body-language of someone feeling threatened imo.  Humiliated, yes.  Physically threatened, no.  He's obviously upset her because she was patently unhappy and/or crying when photographed leaving the restaurant alone later but I suspect that may have been a result of the words he used, rather than his actions.

Under the circs, I would think it unlikely that the staff would have wanted to intervene, even if they had been aware of it.  It's the couple's private business and it''s not clear from the photos that there was any physical harm being done.  To say nothing of respecting the rich and powerful's privacy.  I'm sure far worse has gone on, there or elsewhere when there are no handy photographers around.

None of the foregoing stops him being a bully and an a-hole, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> and she now has evidence that he is confident enough in being abusive towards her to act this way in public, and that this has been going on a while. she now has evidence beyond he said/she said. which is probably worth more long term than anyone stopping him.


 
could be quite a nice little earner in the divorce courts?


----------



## clicker (Jun 16, 2013)

If there is a positive, the photos should make her divorce lawyer's case easier than expected.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> could be quite a nice little earner in the divorce courts?


 


clicker said:


> If there is a positive, the photos should make her divorce lawyer's case easier than expected.


 
johnny come lately


----------



## laptop (Jun 16, 2013)

Bitter&Twisted said:


> What I found moderately interesting about the photos is that in at least two of them, while he has his left hand on her throat her own hand is resting over his right. That's not the body-language of someone feeling threatened imo. Humiliated, yes.


 
You're reading too much into it. It _could_ be the body language of someone ineptly trying to fend off an attack. It _could_ be many things... but you choose the interpretation that exonerates the slimeball.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 16, 2013)

I don't buy the self-defence defence.  But the images I've seen aren't conclusive of DV either - are the pictures of her looking upset automatically as a result of the apparent choking - which may or may not have aggressive/abusive (as opposed to, say, illustrating such an act)? Or could they have resulted from her having her/their privacy invaded by one or more paps looking to sell in a nasty story?    I think it's ultimately upto Nigella herself to determine how seriously she regards what went on and what should follow as a result of it.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jun 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> right, so if i see a woman being battered and i am in no danger you think i should just walk by. are you sure of your point?


Oh how clever, you think you've found a flaw in my argument. Although you know perfectly well that I was talking about Saatchi's behaviour, not that of a bystander. If you want me to broaden my point to include bystanders I would say that if I had been at the next table I would have stood up, got between the two of them and said to the offender 'you can't do that.' No need for me to hit him. If he carried on assaulting the victim, or me, I would have tried to restrain him, probably twist his arm and force him to the floor.  If he was holding a weapon or I thought the situation was risky, e.g. we're in a quiet spot with no witnesses or security cameras I would punch him on the nose first. Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## toggle (Jun 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> could be quite a nice little earner in the divorce courts?


 
becsuse money is obviously the only reason to want evidence of dv in your fucked up world?


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 16, 2013)

Bitter&Twisted said:


> It's the couple's private business and it''s not clear from the photos that there was any physical harm being done.


 
violence inflicted on anyone, domestic or otherwise, is EVERYONES business. limp-dicked bullies like this fuck rely on people not wanting to get involved, not intervening enables and perpetuates their abusive behaviour.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 16, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Photograpers are just outside observers of life, whether it's an incident of domestic violence or a group of workers partying that they sell to the rightwing media allowing their public naming and shaming, the photographer has no moral duty other than the taking of an interesting snap


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> becsuse money is obviously the only reason to want evidence of dv in your fucked up world?


 
do you think that when someone asks you a question there is necessarily a clew to their thinking in the question?


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jun 16, 2013)

laptop said:


> You're reading too much into it. It _could_ be the body language of someone ineptly trying to fend off an attack. It _could_ be many things... but you choose the interpretation that exonerates the slimeball.


 

Maybe I am reading too much into it.  That's always a distinct possibility when only seeing a tiny fraction of what goes on in someone else's life, which could be open to all sorts of subjective interpretation.

Also, I do not accept that calling someone a bully and an a-hole could be seen as seeking to exonerate anyone.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 16, 2013)

If he behaves likes this in public i dread to think what he would do in private.I have had arguments with both men and women but can honestly say that i have gone for the throat in that way


----------



## Part 2 (Jun 16, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> violence inflicted on anyone, domestic or otherwise, is EVERYONES business. limp-dicked bullies like this fuck rely on people not wanting to get involved, not intervening enables and perpetuates their abusive behaviour.


 
That's a bit simplistic tbh. Plenty of women would be able to tell stories where people have intervened only for them to be assaulted far worse when they've got home.

In the event of a physical assault taking place the right thing to do is call the police because even if the victim doesn't want to press charges the police can do so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Oh how clever, you think you've found a flaw in my argument. Although you know perfectly well that I was talking about Saatchi's behaviour, not that of a bystander. If you want me to broaden my point to include bystanders I would say that if I had been at the next table I would have stood up, got between the two of them and said to the offender 'you can't do that.' No need for me to hit him. If he carried on assaulting the victim, or me, I would have tried to restrain him, probably twist his arm and force him to the floor. If he was holding a weapon or I thought the situation was risky, e.g. we're in a quiet spot with no witnesses or security cameras I would punch him on the nose first. Is that clear enough for you?


i know quite well that you said 





> There can be no justification for assaulting someone, except in self-defence


are you now saying that there are other justifications? don't bother to elaborate, a simply yes or no will do


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> If he behaves likes this in public i dread to think what he would do in private.I have had arguments with both men and women but can honestly say that i have gone for the throat in that way


 
in publick?


----------



## Poot (Jun 16, 2013)

Bitter&Twisted said:


> What I found moderately interesting about the photos is that in at least two of them, while he has his left hand on her throat her own hand is resting over his right.  That's not the body-language of someone feeling threatened imo.  Humiliated, yes.  Physically threatened, no.  He's obviously upset her because she was patently unhappy and/or crying when photographed leaving the restaurant alone later but I suspect that may have been a result of the words he used, rather than his actions.
> 
> Under the circs, I would think it unlikely that the staff would have wanted to intervene, even if they had been aware of it.  It's the couple's private business and it''s not clear from the photos that there was any physical harm being done.  To say nothing of respecting the rich and powerful's privacy.  I'm sure far worse has gone on, there or elsewhere when there are no handy photographers around.
> 
> None of the foregoing stops him being a bully and an a-hole, though.



What I read into it, from the little available information, is that she was pleading with him. Maybe this is a tactic that has worked in the past. Maybe she was trying to remind him that they were in public. Maybe she'd even seen the photographer. And just to add my opinion, there is no situation ever when it is ok to put your hand on someone's throat like that. Ever.


----------



## agricola (Jun 16, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> violence inflicted on anyone, domestic or otherwise, is EVERYONES business. limp-dicked bullies like this fuck rely on people not wanting to get involved, not intervening enables and perpetuates their abusive behaviour.


 
Perhaps, though you would be amazed at how many times the person who steps in - be it police, random members of the public, LAS crew etc etc - ends up getting assaulted by _both_ parties in a domestic.  The best advice is to ring 999 straight away, fights in the street will almost always get an emergency response.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 16, 2013)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though you would be amazed at how many times the person who steps in - be it police, random members of the public, LAS crew etc etc - ends up getting assaulted by _both_ parties in a domestic.


 
The thıng ıs, you never know who (or what) you're dealıng wıth.

A bloke I know remonstrated wıth a man who was hıttıng a woman, and the guy shot hım ın the head.


----------



## agricola (Jun 16, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> The thıng ıs, you never know who (or what) you're dealıng wıth.


 
Indeed.


----------



## Geri (Jun 16, 2013)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though you would be amazed at how many times the person who steps in - be it police, random members of the public, LAS crew etc etc - ends up getting assaulted by _both_ parties in a domestic. The best advice is to ring 999 straight away, fights in the street will almost always get an emergency response.


 
I've called 999 a few times when there have been fights kicking off in the park opposite my work, and they have always arrived within minutes. I don't think 999 would be appropriate in this situation though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

Geri said:


> I've called 999 a few times when there have been fights kicking off in the park opposite my work, and they have always arrived within minutes. I don't think 999 would be appropriate in this situation though.


 
perhaps 020 7293 3000


----------



## laptop (Jun 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps 020 7293 3000


----------



## cantsin (Jun 16, 2013)

gabi said:


> Sorry? Fuck you. No idea who you are but please don't interact with me again you fucking cunt.


 




idiot


----------



## agricola (Jun 16, 2013)

The Torygraph has a very sly picture editor, it seems:


----------



## gabi (Jun 16, 2013)

Firky said:


> Domestic abuse seems so common, I can't really say I am surprised at this story (always knew Saatchi was a horrible bloke). I've had friends who were in abusive relationships, emotionally and physically. It's everywhere and sadly tolerated, excused and even shrugged off (see Gabi's posts). Fucked up.
> 
> Yep, always makes me think of Kitty Genovese; one of the most baffling things I've ever read about human psychology.


 
i worked for saatchi. he is not a very a nice man. to say the the least.

there is NEVER any excuse for any violence. i apologise for appearing churlish earlier but you should also see my previous posts asking somebody with some balls and who is actually in the UK to report the prick. i am not, or i would.


----------



## gabi (Jun 16, 2013)

cantsin said:


> idiot


 
sorry?

report the cunt then please.


----------



## gabi (Jun 16, 2013)

gabi said:


> sorry?
> 
> report the cunt then please.


 
Are you going to call the police?


----------



## gabi (Jun 16, 2013)

Have any of you outraged internet warriors actually called the cops? Idiots.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> perhaps 020 7293 3000



I hear 111 or 333 or something


----------



## RegularPoster (Jun 16, 2013)

.


----------



## Callie (Jun 16, 2013)

gabi said:


> Have any of you outraged internet warriors actually called the cops? Idiots.


Oh, I thought you'd said it didnt matter because she was no saint herself? make your mind up


----------



## Firky (Jun 16, 2013)

gabi said:


> i worked for saatchi. he is not a very a nice man. to say the the least.


 

I know what he's like, I never had any dealings with him personally but when I was with Emap there was a few people who had and not one of them had good things to say. Quite the opposite. The whole industry had that air about it, not my thing at all.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 16, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> No, but he could/should've dived in and pushed the person in the pic who's about to be twatted out of the way of the twatting. But instead chose to take a fucking _photograph._ The prick.
> 
> E2a - So yeah, it is clear cut.



No it's not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2013)

gabi said:


> Are you going to call the police?


twat


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 16, 2013)

You really need the timestamps if there's an argument to be made about the photographer intervening. He also might have been sat 100 yards away in a car, so if they were shot over a brief 5 seconds then he couldn't have done much at the time. Nothing stopping him from taking retrospective action of course.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 16, 2013)

Funnily enough, although this story has made it into papers such as the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, it's yet to grace the BBC website.


----------



## agricola (Jun 16, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> You really need the timestamps if there's an argument to be made about the photographer intervening. He also might have been sat 100 yards away in a car, so if they were shot over a brief 5 seconds then he couldn't have done much at the time. Nothing stopping him from taking retrospective action of course.


 
It might also be worth finding out how much the paper paid for the photos, and whether _they_ reported it to the police before printing them.


----------



## Firky (Jun 16, 2013)

Isn't the act of taking the photographs (and publishing them) a kind of intervention? Thing is, that only works if the person you're photographing do something abhorrent is capable of feeling shame, regret and guilt. In the case of Saatchi I don't think any of those are applicable.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 16, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Funnily enough, although this story has made it into papers such as the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, it's yet to grace the BBC website.



It's gossip rather than news unless someone is charged with a crime or goes on the record, as far as the BBC is concerned.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 16, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> It's gossip rather than news unless someone is charged with a crime or goes on the record, as far as the BBC is concerned.


 
Considering that's not a rule they apply consistently, I'm somewhat sceptical.


----------



## Firky (Jun 16, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Considering that's not a rule they apply consistently, I'm somewhat sceptical.


 

I am pretty sure they covered the story of Andrew Marr cheating on his wife in some form. CBA to check.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 16, 2013)

Firky said:


> I am pretty sure they covered the story of Andrew Marr cheating on his wife in some form. CBA to check.


 
Didn't he get or try to get a super injunction thingy about that?


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 16, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Didn't he get or try to get a super injunction thingy about that?


 

Think he did get one, aye.


----------



## Firky (Jun 16, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Didn't he get or try to get a super injunction thingy about that?


 

He did, yeah - and I def' remember the BBC covering on the super injunction.


----------



## agricola (Jun 16, 2013)

Firky said:


> Isn't the act of taking the photographs (and publishing them) a kind of intervention? Thing is, that only works if the person you're photographing do something abhorrent is capable of feeling shame, regret and guilt. In the case of Saatchi I don't think any of those are applicable.


 
Perhaps, though if that is the case and the reason for publishing you would hope that they had spoken to and got the consent of Lawson.


----------



## killer b (Jun 16, 2013)

yeah, i'm not at all comfortable with this tbh - women in DV situations have enough trouble already without their business being splashed across the national press. this could easily make things much worse for her.


----------



## Geri (Jun 16, 2013)

She's packed her bags now.


----------



## Firky (Jun 16, 2013)

I was wondering out loud really, wondering if the photographer thought (s)he was doing some 'good' by taking the photos and shaming Saatchi. I can't imagine paparazzi seeking consent though... (or acting altruistically come to think about it).

Where did you see that, Geri ?


----------



## killer b (Jun 16, 2013)

has she? good. hopefully for good too.


----------



## agricola (Jun 16, 2013)

Firky said:


> I was wondering out loud really, wondering if the photographer thought (s)he was doing some 'good' by taking the photos and shaming Saatchi. I can't imagine paparazzi seeking consent though... or acting altruistically.
> 
> Where did you see that, Geri ?


 
They wouldnt, but the paper is in a good position to do so.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 16, 2013)

He's a pro in PR though so he'll probably spin it and say he was examining her thyroid.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 16, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Its an anagram of sells me guts.


 
No it isn't. It's an anagram of Musty Legless.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 16, 2013)

Nigella "packing her bags"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-TV-chef-choked-husband-Charles-Saatchi.html


----------



## Balbi (Jun 16, 2013)

Hope his genitals go septic but can never be removed


----------



## JHE (Jun 16, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> He's a pro in PR though so he'll probably spin it and say he was examining her thyroid.


 

I think he'll make no comment about the apparent strangling.  Experts in communication know that sometimes it's best  to shut up, because any other option just adds to the unwelcome publicity.  (Similarly, I'm told that good lawyers often advise their defamed clients not to pursue the case.)


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 16, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-TV-chef-choked-husband-Charles-Saatchi.html


 

Why doesn't the Daily Mail understand the difference between a cook and a chef? The woman has never run so much as a burger van.


----------



## Firky (Jun 16, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> He's a pro in PR though so he'll probably spin it and say he was examining her thyroid.


 




> I've just looked at all the pictures and it is far from clear exactly what was going on. Why would he be checking up her nose if he was "choking" her? *It is possible that he was feeling her glands for swelling.* Whatever the truth, I don't think anyone should judge based on a few pictures taken by an intrusive photographer and other diners who are guessing at the situation. I can't imagine anything worse than being famous - people constantly jumping to conclusions with no proof and following you everywhere you go. I'd rather be penniless and have my privacy thank you.
> - Caroline, Cleveleys, United Kingdom, 16/6/2013 1:39
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Firky (Jun 16, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> Why doesn't the Daily Mail understand the difference between a cook and a chef? The woman has never run so much as a burger van.


 
You're a bit of a prick aren't you, Maurice?

Knock her down a bit further, humiliate her a bit more. Go on.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 16, 2013)

> I've never liked Saatchi. Just by looking at him you can see that he is cruel, and controlling.


 
scorchio!


----------



## Geri (Jun 16, 2013)

Firky said:


> I was wondering out loud really, wondering if the photographer thought (s)he was doing some 'good' by taking the photos and shaming Saatchi. I can't imagine paparazzi seeking consent though... (or acting altruistically come to think about it).
> 
> Where did you see that, Geri ?


 
Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-TV-chef-choked-husband-Charles-Saatchi.html


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 16, 2013)

Firky said:


> You're a bit of a prick aren't you, Maurice?
> 
> Knock her down a bit further, humiliate her a bit more. Go on.


 
You're an unbelievable knob at times with the obsessive and randomly deployed chivalry. She's very well off. Why on earth would she want to run a professional kitchen? It's a horrid job. I was having a go at the Mail, not the soi-disant domestic deity.


----------



## Firky (Jun 16, 2013)

You don't get it do you, Maurice?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 16, 2013)

Firky said:


> You don't get it do you, Maurice?


 
I certainly have no idea what the point or value of you is supposed to be.


----------



## Poot (Jun 16, 2013)

Whether she's a cook, whether she's a chef, whether she's a Tory, whoever her father is, whether she stayed with her dying husband, whether she makes good or bad tv programmes, however rich she is, or whichever circles she mixes in is entirely irrelevant. Why are people not getting this?


----------



## Balbi (Jun 16, 2013)

Strip out the who, and where. 

This is a high profile DV story which is causing some havoc amongst some of my friends who are past victims etc.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 16, 2013)

Poot said:


> Whether she's a cook, whether she's a chef, whether she's a Tory, whoever her father is, whether she stayed with her dying husband, whether she makes good or bad tv programmes, however rich she is, or whichever circles she mixes in is entirely irrelevant. Why are people not getting this?


 
^^^This. None of this matters.

What matters is that he should be prosecuted for this, and that she and her children (including her step-child) are safe from him if they are still at home. Because I doubt that this is the first time he's behaved in this way towards her (there's photos from earlier in the year where he has his hand over her mouth, so I'm pretty sure it's not).


----------



## Firky (Jun 16, 2013)

Poot said:


> Whether she's a cook, whether she's a chef, whether she's a Tory, whoever her father is, whether she stayed with her dying husband, whether she makes good or bad tv programmes, however rich she is, or whichever circles she mixes in is entirely irrelevant. Why are people not getting this?


 

Because they are dickheads and her status matters more to them than DV.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 16, 2013)

Police are aware... and it was a week ago too, according to the Graun

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/16/police-nigella-lawson-charles-saatchi


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 16, 2013)

Im certainly not one to make a case of paparazzi (nasty shits), but i do wonder that if in some way the publishing of the photographs had an effect on her deciding to leave? Either way i hope she does what's right for herself.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 16, 2013)

To those who think the BBC isn't publishing anything because it's gossip, care to comment on why they're publishing an article on the birth of Kim Kardashian's baby? If that's not gossip I don't know what is.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 16, 2013)

Indisputable the baby's been born, and unlikely to cause controversy amongst the rich and powerful innit.

The BBC's had a shit year and they're gun shy.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 16, 2013)

Poot said:


> Whether she's a cook, whether she's a chef, whether she's a Tory, whoever her father is, whether she stayed with her dying husband, whether she makes good or bad tv programmes, however rich she is, or whichever circles she mixes in is entirely irrelevant. Why are people not getting this?


 
Fuck it, I've nothing wise or interesting to say but thought maybe if I quote it a third time it might start to sink in in some quarters.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> Fuck it, I've nothing wise or interesting to say but thought maybe if I quote it a third time it might start to sink in in some quarters.


Yep. This thread has been a bit like an inversion of the John Peel noncery thread.  In this one its people we _don't_ like doing bad stuff, but its the bad stuff that needs to stay in focus.  Okay, post mortem I'd push him down into that final circle of hell reserved for key figures in advertising, but in this life he should get what's coming to every other dv scumbag.


----------



## shygirl (Jun 16, 2013)

The silence in some parts of the media reminds me a bit of how differently journalists treated the McCanns, initially at least, than they would have done were they a working class family.   When ordinary people are caught in awful, embarrassing or compromising situations, you never get the middle classes tweeting about protecting their dignity, etc.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 16, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> To those who think the BBC isn't publishing anything because it's gossip, care to comment on why they're publishing an article on the birth of Kim Kardashian's baby? If that's not gossip I don't know what is.


 
Because it's reporting something that someone else has announced. It's not that the BBC is high-minded.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 16, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> Police are aware... and it was a week ago too, according to the Graun
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/16/police-nigella-lawson-charles-saatchi


 In the scheme of things, its not that important, but I wonder why the Guardian felt the need to scoop up the views of Louise Mensch? Always go by their first instincts it seems.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 16, 2013)

gabi said:


> she's no saint herself. leaving her last husband for saatchi days before he died of terminal cancer. but regardless. domestic violence, no.


 

I know you have apologised for this comment already but I wanted to say this because I think it's quite important.

P&P is publicly viewable.  Statistically speaking, members of this board will be experiencing DV and anyone else who is experiencing it may be able to view this thread.

How do you think that comment might have come across to someone suffering from domestic abuse?  To someone whose way of thinking will already be quite warped thanks to careful manipulation by the perpetrator.  Probably make them feel pretty shitty, huh?  Think it might validate a little those excuses they'll have heard a hundred times? 'if only you didn't annoy me so much' 'if you would just do what I asked' 'well I told you do x and you did y so what do you expect?' 'well if you will behave like that' etc etc

Do you think your last bit would even register?  Or do you think your comment about her being no saint would resonate more strongly for someone who has been put into an extremely vulnerable mental state?

I'm not trying to drag anything up and I'm not having a go because I do realise you've recognised an error of judgement, I suppose I wanted to say it for future reference.  Perhaps for others to read.  Just felt it needed to be said really.


----------



## Firky (Jun 16, 2013)

I don't really care for Lawson but I can't see the logic in belittling her experience of DV by saying she's not a proper chef or that she somehow is less than perfect for whatever spurious reason that was reported in the papers about her past relationships. If anything a high profile case like this may give other people subject to DV the confidence to leave. Also if Saatchi is happy to throttle her in public, fuck knows what went on behind closed doors.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 16, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> I know you have apologised for this comment already but I wanted to say this because I think it's quite important.
> 
> P&P is publicly viewable. Statistically speaking, members of this board will be experiencing DV and anyone else who is experiencing it may be able to view this thread.
> 
> ...


 The only footnote I can add is that sufferers of dv might also get a tiny bit of confidence to do something about it if the police were to make a very public show of arresting Saatchi (if and when they receive a complaint).

edit... as firky said.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 16, 2013)

Firky said:


> If anything a high profile case like this may give other people subject to DV the confidence to leave. Also if Saatchi is happy to throttle her in public, fuck knows what went on behind closed doors.


 
Or in the worst case scenario even realise they are being 'abused' and it's unacceptable 
at the very least! How people get out of (if possible) these situations/relationships is another level altogether. 

As you say, it matters not who and what she is....abuse, is abuse, is abuse.

I will admit now, I haven't read the last few pages, I am raging by the idea that anyone is dismissing this because she might be x, or has done y in the past.

I fucking daren't look. :/


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

When you see dv in action there's a part of you wants to ignore the analysis, the stuff about power relations, about gender and just stick for a moment with the immediate anger and thought it provokes - _what kind of a sleazy inadequate would do this? _


----------



## Turboprop (Jun 17, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> No one intervenes. But the Sunday Mirror prints the photos. Fucking hell
> 
> She gets strangled by her husband in a restaurant but no one steps in - they just take pics. Then the Sunday papers decide to put her on the front cover - bunch of cunts, the lot of em.
> 
> (It's in the Sunday Mirror/People - don't want to link to the pics)


 
Must've been the foi gras


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 17, 2013)

Turboprop said:


> Must've been the foi gras


 
Violence against a partner is hardly something to joke about ffs.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

People in advertising are keen on straplines I believe.  Ok, let's see how this one runs:

"_Charles Saatchi - Wifebeater_"


----------



## renegadechicken (Jun 17, 2013)

Had to the call the police earlier this evening as a huge loud argument 'erupted' where the woman across the road was slammed into the front door twice whilst holding their 2 year old child, she was inside and all of a sudden he yelled ' think your fucking hard do ya'  followed by her and whilst holding her child  being slammed into door, which happens to be the half glazed variety - huge amounts of shouting and swearing from him to her, kids screaming, and i was stood in me front garden weeding. No option but to call the police. Me wife is kinda worried about reprisals, as it was so obviously me that called the police, standing in my garden on the phone, then chatting to the police when they attended.

In respect of Saatchi, strangulation/choking is in the top 5 of the highest indicators of increased risk of homicide
*The Top Five Risk Factors*

The numbers in parenthesis indicate the factor by which a domestic violence victim's risk of homicide is increased relative to other domestic violence victims.

 *Has the abuser ever used, or threatened to use, a gun, knife, or other weapon against victim? (20.2x )
*
*Ever threatened to kill or injure victim? (14.9x) Document complete and accurate quotes of the threats
*
*Ever tried to strangle (choke) the victim? (9.9x)
*
*Is abuser violently or constantly jealous? (9.2x )
*
*Has abuser ever forced victim to have sex? (7.6x )*


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 17, 2013)

^ yup. Questions about all that in the police dv risk assessment you'd go through when giving a statement. Strangling/choking.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 17, 2013)

Poot said:


> Whether she's a cook, whether she's a chef, whether she's a Tory, whoever her father is, whether she stayed with her dying husband, whether she makes good or bad tv programmes, however rich she is, or whichever circles she mixes in is entirely irrelevant. Why are people not getting this?


 

Exactly. Her class or politics shouldn't come into it. <ed: removed for legal reasons>


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 17, 2013)

The police here don't use that homicide thing, they use the dash risk assessment to assess levels of risk. If a victim is high risk they are placed on the MARAC register.


----------



## renegadechicken (Jun 17, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> The police here don't use that homicide thing, they use the dash risk assessment to assess levels of risk. If a victim is high risk they are placed on the MARAC register.


What i posted are from research into increased risk for homicide in victims, and the questions are included in the domestic violence history section of the dash risk assessment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2013)

gabi said:


> she's no saint herself.<removed>.


editor is gabi's post potentially libellous?


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 17, 2013)

renegadechicken said:


> What i posted are from research into increased risk for homicide in victims, and the questions are included in the domestic violence history section of the dash risk assessment.


 
Yes, I know what a dash risk assessment looks like.    Wasn't quite clear from your post.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> editor is gabi's post potentially libellous?


 
I'm not sure but please use the report button rather than reposting the potential libel.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 17, 2013)

edit - thought better of it.


----------



## shygirl (Jun 17, 2013)

renegadechicken said:


> Had to the call the police earlier this evening as a huge loud argument 'erupted' where the woman across the road was slammed into the front door twice whilst holding their 2 year old child, she was inside and all of a sudden he yelled ' think your fucking hard do ya' followed by her and whilst holding her child being slammed into door, which happens to be the half glazed variety - huge amounts of shouting and swearing from him to her, kids screaming, and i was stood in me front garden weeding. No option but to call the police. Me wife is kinda worried about reprisals, as it was so obviously me that called the police, standing in my garden on the phone, then chatting to the police when they attended.
> 
> Renegade chicken, good on you.  Did the police arrest him?   She and her child/ren are at very high risk considering he was slamming her into the door with child in arms.  Usually the police will send a Merlin form to Social Services when they attend a DV incident where children are present.  I hope that's happened and, more importantly, I hope that social services pick it up and respond quickly.  I understand your wife's fears about reprisals having been in the same position with one of my neighbours, but you did the right thing.  When you witness such violence, its not really an option to ignore it.


----------



## andysays (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm not sure but please use the report button rather than reposting the potential libel.


 
Without wishing to stir up a world of shit, I guess there are a number of other posts on this thread which might be *potentially* libelous. One example is post #227 (just picking that one because it's the most recent).

No one has yet been charged, far less found guilty, of anything as a consequence of this story yet. If potential libel is a concern when discussing noncery, it's also so when discussing possible assault/domestic violence.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

andysays said:


> Without wishing to stir up a world of shit, I guess there are a number of other posts on this thread which might be *potentially* libelous. One example is post #227 (just picking that one because it's the most recent).
> 
> No one has yet been charged, far less found guilty, of anything as a consequence of this story yet. If potential libel is a concern when discussing noncery, it's also so when discussing possible assault/domestic violence.


 
Good call. I would ask posters to look back at what they're written and amend if necessary.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 17, 2013)

What about the thread title itself? If it's just a playful throttling then that probably needs editing, too.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 17, 2013)

so i've started this thread at page 8 and i'm sad to see that it is clear that some people need to go on The List.


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> so i've started this thread at page 8 and i'm sad to see that it is clear that some people need to go on The List.


they're mostly already on it tbf.


----------



## andysays (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Good call. I would ask posters to look back at what they're written and amend if necessary.


 
But having said that, I already thought Charles Saatchi was a wrong 'un, both for his boosting of the Conservatives and his sponsoring hideous BritArt shit.

Nothing libelous there


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

andysays said:


> But having said that, I already thought Charles Saatchi was a wrong 'un, both for his boosting of the Conservatives and his sponsoring hideous BritArt shit.
> 
> Nothing libelous there


 
He's a fucking cunt. And that's a fully legal opinion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> He's a pro in PR though so he'll probably spin it and say he was examining her thyroid.


 
IIRC he's had fuck-all to do with Saatchi and Saatchi for years, and his boorish cuntishness was mostly offset by his brother when they worked together.  He's out of touch, and probably won't be able to spin this favourably, if he even thinks to. He's never really given much of a shit about his behaviour, or he wouldn't have acted the cunt so consistently for the past 40 years.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

Poot said:


> Whether she's a cook, whether she's a chef, whether she's a Tory, whoever her father is, whether she stayed with her dying husband, whether she makes good or bad tv programmes, however rich she is, or whichever circles she mixes in is entirely irrelevant. Why are people not getting this?


 
Because some people don't *understand* that it's irrelevant - that the only thing that actually matters is that someone has committed an act of violence for no justifiable reason, and that the victim is a victim, regardless of their life or lifestyle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> Police are aware... and it was a week ago too, according to the Graun
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/16/police-nigella-lawson-charles-saatchi


 
I'm going to put a marker down right now for Saatchi's defence. It'll be dementia, and he'll have experts to plead that his excessive alcohol use and smoking has caused neuro-vascular damage that has (ha-fucking-ha) altered his personality from average cunt to total cunt.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm going to put a marker down right now for Saatchi's defence. It'll be dementia, and he'll have experts to plead that his excessive alcohol use and smoking has caused neuro-vascular damage that has (ha-fucking-ha) altered his personality from average cunt to total cunt.


 
Would be a bold move to use play 1 from the 'War Criminal's Big Book Of Dodges'...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

Wilf said:


> When you see dv in action there's a part of you wants to ignore the analysis, the stuff about power relations, about gender and just stick for a moment with the immediate anger and thought it provokes - _what kind of a sleazy inadequate would do this? _


 
The answer being - any and all kinds, unfortunately.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

8ball said:


> Would be a bold move to use play 1 from the 'War Criminal's Big Book Of Dodges'...


 
He's a massive pisshead with a family history of dementia, so it seems likely his defence (legal or in the media) will go down that road, although I personally suspect that any dementia would be of the "Saundersitis" variety.


----------



## Santino (Jun 17, 2013)

It was just a "playful tiff" © Charles Saatchi


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm going to put a marker down right now for Saatchi's defence. It'll be dementia, and he'll have experts to plead that his excessive alcohol use and smoking has caused neuro-vascular damage that has (ha-fucking-ha) altered his personality from average cunt to total cunt.


 

He should have thought of that then when he started doing it.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because some people don't *understand* that it's irrelevant - that the only thing that actually matters is that someone has committed an act of violence for no justifiable reason, and that the victim is a victim, regardless of their life or lifestyle.


 
I don't know about that.  Nıgella Lawson seems lıke a nasty pıece of work to me.  I never lıked her on the telly.  Her father's a complete and utter bastard, her brother's an absolutely unmıtıgated wanker, so's her other brother, and she marrıed a Saatchı.  I have no sympathy for her at all.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I don't know about that. Nıgella Lawson seems lıke a nasty pıece of work to me. I never lıked her on the telly. Her father's a complete and utter bastard, her brother's an absolutely unmıtıgated wanker, so's her other brother, and she marrıed a Saatchı. I have no sympathy for her at all.


 
please don't breed.

thank you have a nice day.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I don't know about that. Nıgella Lawson seems lıke a nasty pıece of work to me. I never lıked her on the telly. Her father's a complete and utter bastard, her brother's an absolutely unmıtıgated wanker, so's her other brother, and she marrıed a Saatchı. I have no sympathy for her at all.


 
You reply speaks volumes about you, which is why I've quoted it.
I wouldn't want you to try editing when you realise that you're halfway to endorsing domestic violence based on who a person is related to or married to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> please don't breed.
> 
> thank you have a nice day.


 
Too late.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 17, 2013)

bit out of order phil


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 17, 2013)

cesare said:
			
		

> Yes, for the other diners (if they realised, as Geri pointed out). The photographer knew what was going on though, and I don't buy the "just doing their job which takes priority" line.



But the other day we had a huge debate which resulted in me being told that intervention in a dv situation is the WRONG thing to do. So now I'm all at sea.  /


----------



## weepiper (Jun 17, 2013)

Saatchi says 'it was just a tiff' and he held her neck 'to emphasise his point'. I hope she doesn't go back, what a cunt.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/cele...lding-wife-nigella-by-the-throat-8661824.html


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> bit out of order phil


 
I must dısagree.  And ''Nıgella'' ıs a sılly name too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> bit out of order phil


 
You know phil. Always has to be controversial, be the centre of attention.
Understandable in a teenager, not particularly edifying in someone who's more than halfway through their "three score and ten" allotted years.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You know phil. Always has to be controversial, be the centre of attention.


 
So ıt's controversıal not to lıke Nıgella Lawson now ıs ıt?

Not ın my world.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

entry level trolling.

1.7/10 - extra points for good spelling.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

Santino said:


> It was just a "playful tiff" © Charles Saatchi


 
Hmm, for most people a tiff is a tiff is a tiff, and they're seldom "playful".


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

i actually thought better of you than that phil.


----------



## Santino (Jun 17, 2013)

This from a man who moved to a different continent because he found his (pregnant) partner annoying.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> So ıt's controversıal not to lıke Nıgella Lawson now ıs ıt?
> 
> Not ın my world.


 
No-one has said it's controversial to dislike Ms. Lawson, phil. Drink some coffee, and try harder.


----------



## cesare (Jun 17, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> But the other day we had a huge debate about which resulted in me being told that intervention in a dv situation is the WRONG thing to do. So now I'm all at sea.  /


With me? I don't remember that


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> So ıt's controversıal not to lıke Nıgella Lawson now ıs ıt?
> 
> Not ın my world.


 
your 'argument' was based on unsubstantiated ad-hominem against people who are related to her. i think you can be safely ignored, you utter, utter cretin.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> i actually thought better of you than that phil.


 

Me too.

Really not the right thread to do this on.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> your 'argument' was based on unsubstantiated ad-hominem against people who are related to her.


 
Not ''people,'' fool.

Nıgel Lawson. Domınıc Lawson. Thıs ıs not ''people'' ıs ıt?

And you may say she had no choıce, but the apple never falls far from the tree. She _marrıed Charles Saatchı _ffs.  Thınk about what that means for a second.  What sort of person would marry Charles Saatchı?

A horrıble person, that's what.

And I just don't lıke her anyway.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 17, 2013)

DV is totes ok if the person is horrible


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Domestic violence is ok when she deserves it


 
I might have paraphrased a touch, but that's what it sound like.  Utter, utter cretin.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Not ''people,'' fool.
> 
> Nıgel Lawson. Domınıc Lawson. Thıs ıs not ''people'' ıs ıt?
> 
> ...


 
you're a lonely man, aren't you, phil?


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 17, 2013)

You're a complete cunt phil, fuck off and troll somewhere else.


----------



## belboid (Jun 17, 2013)

well, if Phil thinks she deserved a slap just for being who she is, what the hell would that mean _he's_ due for?


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> You're a complete cunt phil, fuck off and troll somewhere else.


 
So you'd marry Charles Saatchı would you?

Because that's what she dıd.

Nobody forced her. Nobody put a gun to her head. Nobody even encouraged her very much. But she dıd ıt anyway.

I wouldn't do that, and I thınk anyone who would ıs horrıd.


----------



## cesare (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Not ''people,'' fool.
> 
> Nıgel Lawson. Domınıc Lawson. Thıs ıs not ''people'' ıs ıt?
> 
> ...


Are you saying that she deserves DV as a result of marrying Saatchi together with her family? And if the "asking for it" argument isn't what you meant - what did you mean?


----------



## Balbi (Jun 17, 2013)

I would. It'd scare the shit out of him.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 17, 2013)

cesare said:
			
		

> With me? I don't remember that



No not with you although you were on the thread iirc. I was arguing with spangles and latterly sparklefish about the suggestion that it was patronising to fight other people's battles. I mentioned dv after some toing and froing and was told in no uncertain terms that intervention was the wrong thing to do. I'll find it when I'm not posting from my phone.


----------



## cesare (Jun 17, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> No not with you although you were on the thread iirc. I was arguing with spangles and latterly sparklefish about the suggestion that it was patronising to fight other people's battles. I mentioned dv after some toing and froing abd was told in no uncertain terms that intervention was the wrong thing to do. I'll find it when I'm not posting from my phone.


Ah, ok.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> I'm a fully paid-up member of the Nazi Party.  And I have sex wıth my Doberman.


 
Whoa, that's pretty heavy stuff.  I'd keep ıt quıet ıf I were you.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

Balbi said:


> I would. It'd scare the shit out of him.


 
Actually so would I.  But I need the money.

What's Nıgella's excuse?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Not ''people,'' fool.
> 
> Nıgel Lawson. Domınıc Lawson. Thıs ıs not ''people'' ıs ıt?
> 
> ...


 

doesn't charles saatchi deserve to be arrested for being charles saatchi then? 

your logic makes no sense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> Are you saying that she deserves DV as a result of marrying Saatchi together with her family? And if the "asking for it" argument isn't what you meant - what did you mean?


 
I think we can safely say that *is* what he's saying, given that he's posted much the same in two different posts on this thread.  basically, if you're married or related to someone nasty and/or Tory, phil believes you're deserving of being visited with physical and emotional abuse.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> Are you saying that she deserves DV as a result of marrying Saatchi together with her family? And if the "asking for it" argument isn't what you meant - what did you mean?


 
I meant that I have no sympathy for her.  Whıch ıs also what I saıd, funnıly enough.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Whoa, that's pretty heavy stuff. I'd keep ıt quıet ıf I were you.


Do that again and you'l have a swift ban.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> doesn't charles saatchi deserve to be arrested for being charles saatchi then?
> 
> your logic makes no sense.


 
That's because his logic isn't logic.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Actually so would I. But I need the money.
> 
> What's Nıgella's excuse?


 

Maybe she just wanted to out you for the unable to be able to think more than one thing at once nasty cunt that you are?

I mean, i reckon Saatchi's a bastard, that Nigel and Dominic are nasty pieces of work and that Nigella ain't all she's made out to be. But I can also see that DV in any situation is fucking wrong, and your justification is weaker than your usual efforts to disrupt threads.

In which case, well done Nigella


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> doesn't charles saatchi deserve to be arrested for being charles saatchi then?


 
Arrested? _Arrested?_

He deserves beıng hung, drawn and quartered for beıng Charles Saatchı. And _then _beıng marrıed to Nıgella Lawson. For fıfty years, wıth no possıbılıty of parole.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

Balbi said:


> I can also see that DV in any situation is fucking wrong


 
And I can't?  Is that what you're ımplyıng?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2013)

Torygraph reporting she's moved out with children.

Can't link as story won't open for me.


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I meant that I have no sympathy for her. Whıch ıs also what I saıd, funnıly enough.


phil, could you leave it please. regardless of your personal feelings about lawson, this is a delicate subject for a lot of people for various reasons, and anything that could be interpreted as her being deserving of the violence could upset some people - say, a victim of DV - very deeply.

i hope that you wouldn't want that.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> I've just got back from the Nazı rally.  Tıme to see ıf old Fıdo ıs up for a blow-job.


 
Are you sure you want to be sayıng thıs sort of thıng ın publıc?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Are you sure you want to be sayıng thıs sort of thıng ın publıc?


 
See ya next week, Phil.


----------



## xenon (Jun 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> Ah, ok.


"Neighbour threatens to drop me..."
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/neighbour-threatens-to-drop-me-so-i-called-the-police.311399/

Not sure intervention would have achieved much. Either someone goes over and has a go at Saatchi. OrsStands by the table and asks Nigella if she wants any assistance. 

In first case, hardly like to make her situation better. Immiediately rewarding though it may have been. The second. probably out of embarrassment they'd both tell you to piss off.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And I can't? Is that what you're ımplyıng?


 
It's what you yourself were implying.

I thought you knew better than to do that, let alone posting some of the other deeply unpleasant things you've chosen to put into other people's mouths.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And I can't? Is that what you're ımplyıng?


 

Well, you're a nasty piece of work so whatever, you probably deserve it.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> phil, could you leave it please. regardless of your personal feelings about lawson, this is a delicate subject for a lot of people for various reasons, and anything that could be interpreted as her being deserving of the violence could upset some people - say, a victim of DV - very deeply.
> 
> i hope that you wouldn't want that.


 
Well KB, I'll gıve you the benefıt of a serıous reply because you're sound.

Anyone who reads anythıng I saıd as endorsıng vıolence agaınst Nıgella Lawson ıs mısreadıng. Whıle I naturally regret any upset they may suffer as a result, I can't be held responsıble for theır mıstake.

What I saıd was very clear. I also thınk that ın the context of thıs thread ıt very much needed sayıng. So I'll say ıt agaın.

Nıgella Lawson ıs a truly awful woman. One would expect that gıven her famıly background, and many can see ıt clearly enough ın the way she presents herself, but she has ın any case confırmed ıt by her marrıage choıce. There are approaxımately 60 mıllıon people ın the UK more deservıng of our sympathy than she ıs.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

Greebo said:


> some of the other deeply unpleasant things you've chosen to put into other people's mouths.


 
urhhhhrhruhrhhhh...


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Whıle I naturally regret any upset they may suffer as a result, I can't be held responsıble for theır mıstake.


 
yeah - it's everyone else's fault you're a complete mouth-breathing cockhammer.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## weepiper (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well KB, I'll gıve you the benefıt of a serıous reply because you're sound.
> 
> Anyone who reads anythıng I saıd as endorsıng vıolence agaınst Nıgella Lawson ıs mısreadıng. Whıle I naturally regret any upset they may suffer as a result, I can't be held responsıble for theır mıstake.
> 
> ...


 

Who gives a fuck whether we 'should' like her or not. The issue is that he thought he was above the rules enough that he felt perfectly entitled to take his wife by the throat in a public place.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Damn, he's at the vet's agaın. No dogsex for me tonıght. Guess I'll read through _Meın Kampf _for the twenty-fıfth tıme.


 
Just so long as you stop postıng here.


----------



## weepiper (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Just so long as you stop postıng here.


 

Got a lot of work coming up phil? Need to get yourself off urban for a while? Why not, I don't know, try pming a mod for a temp ban or scrambling your password yourself, instead of acting like a complete cunt on a thread about domestic violence?


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well KB, I'll gıve you the benefıt of a serıous reply because you're sound.
> 
> Anyone who reads anythıng I saıd as endorsıng vıolence agaınst Nıgella Lawson ıs mısreadıng. Whıle I naturally regret any upset they may suffer as a result, I can't be held responsıble for theır mıstake.


no, but at the same time, i'd hope you could see the reason to step more carefully around the subject than you have done.


> What I saıd was very clear. I also thınk that ın the context of thıs thread ıt very much needed sayıng. So I'll say ıt agaın.
> 
> Nıgella Lawson ıs a truly awful woman. One would expect that gıven her famıly background, and many can see ıt clearly enough ın the way she presents herself, but she has ın any case confırmed ıt by her marrıage choıce. There are approaxımately 60 mıllıon people ın the UK more deservıng of our sympathy than she ıs.


why does it need saying? and saying again?


----------



## cesare (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I meant that I have no sympathy for her.  Whıch ıs also what I saıd, funnıly enough.


No, what you said was in response to VP's #243. You said "I don't know about that" and then went onto describe why.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Who gives a fuck whether we 'should' like her or not. The issue is that he thought he was above the rules enough that he felt perfectly entitled to take his wife by the throat in a public place.


 
That's one ıssue.

Another ıssue ıs why there should be such a storm of outrage over the fate of Nıgella when, as I saıd, there are many far more deservıng cases, vırtually all of whıch are entırely ıgnored and none of whıch get on the front of the Sunday People.

Personally I thınk the second ıssue ıs a great deal more ımportant than the fırst.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> What I saıd was very clear. I also thınk that ın the context of thıs thread ıt very much needed sayıng. So I'll say ıt agaın.
> 
> Nıgella Lawson ıs a truly awful woman. One would expect that gıven her famıly background, and many can see ıt clearly enough ın the way she presents herself, but she has ın any case confırmed ıt by her marrıage choıce. There are approaxımately 60 mıllıon people ın the UK more deservıng of our sympathy than she ıs.


 And who are you making this point to?  Who has been saying 'ooh, Nigella, she's lovely', 'aww that's awful, she's my favourite tv cook'?  Nobody has.  The point made repeatedly on this thread is that victims of dv are still victims regardless of whether you (dis)like them or their social circumstances (okay, she's in a slightly 'less bad' situation than working class victims of dv who may have nowhere to go, but that too is irrelevant in terms of whether she is a _victim_).  Which brings us to your motivation - *if you are not responding to what anyone has said, why did you choose to suggest she has brought this on herself*?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> <snip>Nıgella Lawson ıs a truly awful woman. One would expect that gıven her famıly background, and many can see ıt clearly enough ın the way she presents herself, but she has ın any case confırmed ıt by her marrıage choıce. There are approaxımately 60 mıllıon people ın the UK more deservıng of our sympathy than she ıs.


 
A marriage choice which was arguably made while she was in a pretty vulnerable state, given the relatively recent and horrible death of her husband.

Further up this thread, you've taken issue with NL on the basis of her first name - a name over which she had no choice.  Should I take issue with you over your being a very pale imitation of the person who inspired your username?

DV is DV, no matter who it's done to, and it's not funny.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 17, 2013)

​*​*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/jun/17/nigellalawson-thepeople
*​*
*​*
This is a parody of the dangers of trivialising domestic abuse, right? Right? 
*​*


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> <snip>Another ıssue ıs why there should be such a storm of outrage over the fate of Nıgella when, as I saıd, there are many far more deservıng cases, vırtually all of whıch are entırely ıgnored and none of whıch get on the front of the Sunday People.
> 
> Personally I thınk the second ıssue ıs a great deal more ımportant than the fırst.


 
Get a grip, sober up, or whatever.  You won't be able to argue this extremely valid point, or anything else, when you're banned.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

Greebo said:


> DV is DV, no matter who it's done to, and it's not funny.


 I wrote a paragraph, but that says it better in a few words.


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Another ıssue ıs why there should be such a storm of outrage over the fate of Nıgella when, as I saıd, there are many far more deservıng cases, vırtually all of whıch are entırely ıgnored and none of whıch get on the front of the Sunday People.


the more domestic violence is openly discussed, the better imo. this thread isn't just a discussion about the particular case, but a discussion about DV in general. there's presumably similar discussions happening all over the place right now as a result of this story. this is a good thing.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> no, but at the same time, i'd hope you could see the reason to step more carefully around the subject than you have done.


 
Sorry mate, but these boards have never been much cop for steppıng delıcately around tender subjects.  I thınk most people here are well aware of that.



killer b said:


> why does it need saying? and saying again?


 
Basıcally because I'm heartıly sıck of the love-fest that automatıcally greets any mentıon of her (almost unfeasıbly stupıd) name.

What's she ever done to earn anyone's respect or affectıon?  Except that of Charles Saatchı, and we now see what that ıs worth.  She was born ınto a dısgustıng famıly from whıch she has never dıstanced herself, she became a TV celebrıty, whıch ıs just about the most despıcable professıon ımagınable, she has no shame about tradıng on her looks, she wrıtes horrıble snobbısh books about horrıble snobbısh food and I hate her a lot.  So should you.


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Basıcally because I'm heartıly sıck of the love-fest that automatıcally greets any mentıon of her (almost unfeasıbly stupıd) name.


 
have you even read this thread?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Sorry mate, but these boards have never been much cop for steppıng delıcately around tender subjects. I thınk most people here are well aware of that.
> <snip>
> What's she ever done to earn anyone's respect or affectıon? <snip> I hate her a lot. So should you.


 
Sorry to disappoint you, but when it comes to people who inspire loathing and disgust, there's a long line ahead of Nigella Lawson.  Yes she may be wrongheaded, but there are people who've done far worse things than anything she has.


----------



## belboid (Jun 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> have you even read this thread?


Of course he hasn't.  He's just steamed in determined to make himself the centre of attention.  It's what he does.


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Sorry mate, but these boards have never been much cop for steppıng delıcately around tender subjects. I thınk most people here are well aware of that.


 
you are not 'the boards'. i'm asking_ you_ to step more delicately around this subject.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

Wilf said:


> *if you are not responding to what anyone has said, why did you choose to suggest she has brought this on herself*?


 
You are the one who suggested thıs.  I suggested no such thıng.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> you are not 'the boards'. i'm asking_ you_ to step more delicately around this subject.


 
If ıt was just you askıng, I'd do ıt.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jun 17, 2013)

Turboprop said:


> Must've been the foi gras


 
dickhead


----------



## 8ball (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> So you'd marry Charles Saatchı would you?
> 
> Because that's what she dıd.
> 
> Nobody forced her. Nobody put a gun to her head. Nobody even encouraged her very much. But she dıd ıt anyway..


... 
*



			
				Wilf said:
			
		


			if you are not responding to what anyone has said, why did you choose to suggest she has brought this on herself?
		
Click to expand...

*...


phildwyer said:


> You are the one who suggested thıs. I suggested no such thıng.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> have you even read this thread?


 
Would it matter if he had? He'd still be playing the arch-controversialist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

Boris Sprinkler said:


> dickhead


 
Absolutely. Couldn't even spell _foie gras_ right either, the pleb!


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> If ıt was just you askıng, I'd do ıt.


if you feel anyone's response has been over the top, bear in mind the subject matter. i expect there's few people posting who haven't been directly or indirectly affected by DV. if people get angry, that's because it's a highly emotive subject - which is why it's best dealt with gently.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

8ball said:


> ...
> 
> ...


 
dwyer exposed in "Either lying or stupid" shocker!!!


----------



## 8ball (Jun 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> dwyer exposed in "Either lying or stupid" shocker!!!


 
Bring on the wriggling...


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You are the one who suggested thıs. I suggested no such thıng.


 No, you were the one saying she had a 'choice' about marrying saatchi.  You're meaning was clear, even if you tried to get out of it when challenged.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

Greebo said:


> A marriage choice which was arguably made while she was in a pretty vulnerable state, given the relatively recent and horrible death of her husband.


 
Yes but c'mon, Charles Saatchı? _Really? _

Let's leave asıde the questıon of marryıng hım. What sort of person would even _know _hım? What sort of person would not have mates who would say ''Don't marry Charles Saatchı, he's a fat Tory prıck wıth the conscıence of a gnat?''

Someone who only knows wankers, that's who. And most people who only know wankers are wankers themselves.



Greebo said:


> Further up this thread, you've taken issue with NL on the basis of her first name - a name over which she had no choice.


 
No choıce eh?

What would you do ıf you woke up tomorrow mornıng and found yourself called Nıgella? If you went out to pıck up the papers and the shopkeeper saıd ''mornıng Nıgella?'' If you answered the phone and a voıce saıd ''hello Nıgella?''

I could take about 30 mınutes of beıng called ''Nıgella'' before I took myself off to the regıstry offıce sharpısh and changed my name to ''Mary.''

But thıs Nıgella has not done so ın over 40 years of adulthood. Why not? Because she _lıkes beıng called Nıgella _that's why not.

Now, what sort of person would lıke beıng called Nıgella? You see where I'm goıng wıth thıs?



Greebo said:


> Should I take issue with you over your being a very pale imitation of the person who inspired your username?


 
Yes, you should. Defınıtely.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 17, 2013)

please phil, fuck off


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

Wilf said:


> No, you were the one saying she had a 'choice' about marrying saatchi. You're meaning was clear, even if you tried to get out of it when challenged.


 
You are the one who suggested that she had brought the vıolence on herself.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Sorry to disappoint you, but when it comes to people who inspire loathing and disgust, there's a long line ahead of Nigella Lawson. Yes she may be wrongheaded, but there are people who've done far worse things than anything she has.


 
Name one.  A woman.  Other than Thatcher.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You are the one who suggested that she had brought the vıolence on herself.


 
A bold wriggle as opening gambits go...


----------



## Firky (Jun 17, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Saatchi says 'it was just a tiff' and he held her neck 'to emphasise his point'. I hope she doesn't go back, what a cunt.
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/cele...lding-wife-nigella-by-the-throat-8661824.html


 
Yeah, I often use death threats such as strangulation to help her to realise I am right when arguing with my wife. Don't know what the fuss is about.

Oh well, Saatchi is a chain smoker isn't he?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2013)

The brass neck of the cunt.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

8ball said:


> A bold wriggle as opening gambits go...


 Indeed, straight in with _The Reality Inversion_.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 17, 2013)

Jesus christ phil.


----------



## Firky (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> So you'd marry Charles Saatchı would you?
> 
> Because that's what she dıd.
> 
> ...


 

Regardless of what it takes to marry someone as rancid as Saatchi I don't believe anyone has married you!


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Name one. A woman. Other than Thatcher.


Liz Jones, Edwina Currie, Theresa May... how long have you got?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2013)

Why the fuck are people bothering with dwyer? Seriously.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

Firky said:


> Regardless of what it takes to marry someone as rancid as Saatchi I don't believe anyone has married you!


 
It probably implies a lot about Turkish men.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Why the fuck are people bothering with dwyer? Seriously.


 
Because.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Why the fuck are people bothering with dwyer? Seriously.


I know, I know... It's just like you've got a fairly clean kitchen, you've got your coat on ready to go out. Then you see the cat's shat on the floor. You just can't leave it, it'll stink the place out.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Liz Jones, Edwina Currie, Theresa May... how long have you got?


 
Lız Jones ıs better than Nıgella. At least she's got a normal name.

Serıously though, how many people who are here lamentıng the tragedy of Nıgella were unashamedly cock-a-hoop when Thatcher dıed?

Explaın to me the logıc of that one. Actually don't bother, I can see the ''logıc'' of ıt very well, and ıt doesn't reflect too nıcely on theır morals.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

Greebo said:


> It probably implies a lot about Turkish men.


 
Belıeve me, a Turk ıs the last man I'd marry.


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

oh well.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Belıeve me, a Turk ıs the last man I'd marry.


 
But AFAIK you're not female, and the the choices about what you do with your life while in Turkey aren't the same as a woman born there.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 17, 2013)

Greebo said:


> But AFAIK you're not female, and the the choices about what you do with your life while in Turkey aren't the same as a woman born there.


 
I'd certaınly marry a Turk though.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I'd certaınly marry a Turk though.


 
You already have, poor woman.  

Revenons a nos moutons.  No matter how ridiculous somebody's legal name, it doesn't mean that they deserve physical abuse.  The sheer bureaucratic inconvenience of changing it has to be experienced to be believed.


----------



## idumea (Jun 17, 2013)

Edit - actually - on second thought - I've taken that screenshot down. Nobody needs to see Nick Griffin's sensitive contribution to the topic. Here if you're interested.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

One day ban duly delivered for dwyer.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

idumea said:


> .
> Disgusting creature of a man


Ugh. What a repulsive little worm he is.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

idumea said:


> <snip>Nobody needs to see Nick Griffin's sensitive contribution to the topic. Here if you're interested.


 
Technically an adult male human being - I'm not sure that he qualifies as a man.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> One day ban duly delivered for dwyer.


A week would've been better but we'll have to take what we can get.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> One day ban duly delivered for dwyer.


well done. I'm staggered at his vile postings on this thread tbh. He really has plumbed new depths


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

TruXta said:


> A week would've been better but we'll have to take what we can get.


 
I don't take requests when I'm banning, but the ban will ratchet up swiftly if he continues the same shit on his return.


----------



## cesare (Jun 17, 2013)

idumea said:


> Edit - actually - on second thought - I've taken that screenshot down. Nobody needs to see Nick Griffin's sensitive contribution to the topic. Here if you're interested.


Here's hoping that Nigella has Beatrix tendencies if that opportunity ever comes his way.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> I don't take requests when I'm banning, but the ban will ratchet up swiftly if he continues the same shit on his return.


You mean for the length of the ban?


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You mean for the length of the ban?


Yes. People often like to tell me how long someone should be banned for.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Yes. People often like to tell me how long someone should be banned for.


 Poll!


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Yes. People often like to tell me how long someone should be banned for.


No wonder!  See your point though.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 17, 2013)

> He explained it was "an intense debate about the children" in which, he said, "I held Nigella's neck repeatedly while attempting to emphasise my point." He went on:
> "There was no grip, it was a playful tiff. The pictures are horrific but give a far more drastic and violent impression of what took place. Nigella's tears were because we both hate arguing, not because she had been hurt.
> We had made up by the time we were home. The paparazzi were congregated outside our house after the story broke yesterday morning, so I told Nigella to take the kids off till the dust settled."​


 
Fucking hell, if that's a playful tiff, I'd hate to see him angry


----------



## ddraig (Jun 17, 2013)

"i told her to take the kids off until the dust settled"


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Fucking hell, if that's a playful tiff, I'd hate to see him angry


same here


----------



## Poot (Jun 17, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Fucking hell, if that's a playful tiff, I'd hate to see him angry


He sees the photos and he STILL doesn't get it


----------



## Firky (Jun 17, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Fucking hell, if that's a playful tiff, I'd hate to see him angry


 

It is such bullshit: everyone hates arguing, but how does he know that the tears were because of that and not because he throttled her? Also, why would you do that in the first place - the fact he's so casual and flippant about it speaks volumes and I believe it hints at more ominous things. Repugnant shit that he is.

Labour isn't working? Neither is your deceit.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 17, 2013)

yeah, but DO YOU KNOW WHO HE IS!!!?>!?!>!


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 17, 2013)

Even if she wasn't crying because she was physically hurt, he made his wife cry (and in public) by his behaviour. You don't even need the physical side of it  to be abuse. God why do some men still fail to see this?


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 17, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Even if she wasn't crying because she was physically hurt, he made his wife cry (and in public) by his behaviour. You don't even need the physical side of it to be abuse. God why do some men still fail to see this?


 
I suspect people in his position are used to being in the right 100% of the time.  The idea that he has done something wrong would never cross the mind.


----------



## Firky (Jun 17, 2013)

idumea said:


> Edit - actually - on second thought - I've taken that screenshot down. Nobody needs to see Nick Griffin's sensitive contribution to the topic. Here if you're interested.


 

That's not unlike some of the attitudes on this thread TBH. Shifting the focus away from domestic violence and onto such things as if she is a chef or a cook and if she in perhaps some way deserved it for being less than saintly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2013)

Firky said:


> That's not unlike some of the attitudes on this thread TBH. Shifting the focus away from domestic violence and onto such things as if she is a chef or a cook and if she in perhaps some way deserved it for being less than saintly.


 what's the difference between a chef and a cook?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what's the difference between a chef and a cook?


IIRC some places (not sure about the UK) a chef is a cook with a degree from a culinary arts educational establishment.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 17, 2013)

about ten grand a year


----------



## Firky (Jun 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what's the difference between a chef and a cook?


 

A chef is a professional cook where as a cook is a professional chef.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 17, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Even if she wasn't crying because she was physically hurt, he made his wife cry (and in public) by his behaviour. You don't even need the physical side of it to be abuse. God why do some men still fail to see this?


Apparently in an interview she has said she doesn't cry even as an adult because her mother physically abused her and she determined never to cry.This makes it more likely it was caused by physical pain.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2013)

Cooks cook things while chefs stand there shouting at people, doing fuck all actual work, and getting paid a shitload of money.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jun 17, 2013)

Poot said:


> He sees the photos and he STILL doesn't get it


 

The vile growth gets it just fine. He's just going for an opening gambit of denial, and playing the only possible line of spin that in any way supports that. I'd imagine he'll see how it sits with the papers for a couple of weeks, and if things look like it'll blow over he'll stage a couple of family outings with prior notification to photographers.  If it hasn't worked, he can go for a mea culpa, blame whatever personal demon he's happy to be associated with and check into rehab, whilst preparing for a redemption campaign in 4 months (my battle with whatever, etc)

Hopefully though, she's already got Raymond Tooth/Ayesha Vardag/similar level of legal pitbull preparing to carve huge chunks out of his fortune.   It's too much to hope that'll ever be ruined, but with a bit of luck he might lose enough to make him cry.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 17, 2013)

Fruitloop said:


> about ten grand a year


 
No, that's the difference between a commis chef and a sous chef.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2013)

8ball said:


> No, that's the difference between a commis chef and a sous chef.


How much between a commie chef and a Sioux one?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what's the difference between a chef and a cook?


 
I'd just say cook is an amateur, with the exception being someone preparing traditional home-cooking in large volume (i.e. a school), while a chef is  someone doing it professionally.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 17, 2013)

TruXta said:


> How much between a commie chef and a Sioux one?


 
From the Sioux chef according to how much land and loot he has, to the commie chef according to his need.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 17, 2013)

Shining a light into the soul of Charles Saatchi.......



> "coveting is all everyone does, all the time, every day.........It's what drives the world economy, pushes people to make a go of their lives, so that they can afford the executive model of their Ford Mondeo to park next to their neighbour's standard model. And who would want to be married to someone who nobody coveted?"


 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9151424/Charles-Saatchi-wants-wife-Nigella-Lawson-to-be-coveted.html


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2013)

Saatchi's arse-covering statement is fucking sickening. If you use physical force during an argument, then that's abuse. Obviously.

And was this a 'playful tiff' or an 'intense debate' ? Not that it makes any difference, it just illustrates the kind of shit people come out with when they know they've been a cunt but they don't want to take responsibility.


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I'd just say cook is an amateur, with the exception being someone preparing traditional home-cooking in large volume (i.e. a school), while a chef is someone doing it professionally.


ie, a chef is a professional cook, unless they happen to be working professionally in a role normally filled by a woman, in which case they're just a cook.


----------



## andysays (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Yes. People often like to tell me how long someone should be banned for.


 
Just out of interest, what does it take to get permanently banned round here?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Saatchi's arse-covering statement is fucking sickening. If you use physical force during an argument, then that's abuse. Obviously.
> 
> And was this a 'playful tiff' or an 'intense debate' ? Not that it makes any difference, it just illustrates the kind of shit people come out with when they know they've been a cunt but they don't want to take responsibility.


 
It's a playground excuse given to a teacher. I remember saying stuff like that when I was about 8. "We always do that Miss, it's just a joke we've got."


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> Even if she wasn't crying because she was physically hurt, he made his wife cry (and in public) by his behaviour. You don't even need the physical side of it to be abuse. God why do some men still fail to see this?


 
And holding someone by the throat is an inherently threatening thing to do. You're immobilised and you know that if that grip tightens then you're suddenly gonna be in a lot of pain. There's no reason to do that to someone apart from to scare the shit out of them and assert your own dominance.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 17, 2013)

andysays said:


> Just out of interest, what does it take to get permanently banned round here?


More than it used to do!


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> ie, a chef is a professional cook, unless they happen to be working professionally in a role normally filled by a woman, in which case they're just a cook.


 
Largely true, although I'd say that we'd generally call them "cooks" in the male-dominated military too. I think "cook" suggests non-haute cuisine being prepared, and "chef" suggests posher food.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> Shining a light into the soul of Charles Saatchi.......
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9151424/Charles-Saatchi-wants-wife-Nigella-Lawson-to-be-coveted.html


 
What an appalling man he is. The reason people spend their lives wishing for stuff they don't have is not basic human nature but the fact that him and people like him bombard us all from every angle and in every possible way with instructions about what we should want and who we can pay to get it.

What's the point of having a wife nobody covets? I dunno, maybe companionship, love, intimacy, joy, trust...all those things that are useless to people like Saatchi because they cannot be bought or sold.


----------



## marty21 (Jun 17, 2013)

having grown up in a violent household - heavy drinking Irish dad - I wouldn't dream of raising my hand to a woman - when you experience this as a kid - it does scar you for life in a way (partly a good way as you don't want to repeat the mistakes of your father)


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> More than it used to do!


 
I think libelling editor personally might do it. I'm not sure though. Maybe it's the opposite and he's the only person he will let you libel. Alternatively you could libel one of the 10 richest people in the world and I bet that would get you kicked off for a couple of decades.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

Yeah we definitely ban too easily/don't ban enough/give poster too many chances/are too strict/are too reasonable/are too unfair/unbiased/biased/too lenient/too tough etc etc etc.


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

marty21 said:


> having grown up in a violent household - heavy drinking Irish dad - I wouldn't dream of raising my hand to a woman - when you experience this as a kid - it does scar you for life in a way (partly a good way as you don't want to repeat the mistakes of your father)


sadly it doesn't always work this way.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Yeah we definitely ban too easily/don't ban enough/give poster too many chances/are too strict/are too reasonable/are too unfair/unbiased/biased/too lenient/too tough etc etc etc.


 
You most definitely do do dat.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2013)

I know it's got its major faults but I'd expect better from The Guardian on this.



> Speculation about the circumstances was rife on the net, as was condemnation (of Saatchi). Many "experts" were quick to make pronouncements about domestic violence. Am I alone in thinking this may have been a rush to judgment?


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/jun/17/nigellalawson-thepeople


----------



## Itziko (Jun 17, 2013)

ddraig said:


> yeah, but DO YOU KNOW WHO HE IS!!!?>!?!>!


 
Frankly, I'm very disappointed, I was expecting a better spin from such a PR guru, than "it was just a playful tiff".


----------



## andysays (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Yeah we definitely ban too easily/don't ban enough/give poster too many chances/are too strict/are too reasonable/are too unfair/unbiased/biased/too lenient/too tough etc etc etc.


 
Sorry, I'm genuinely not trying to criticise or second guess you, but given what I've just read on this thread, which appears to include someone completely fabricating another poster's quotes three times as well as the more obvious shit, I'm utterly amazed at your response.

In the admitted short time I've been reading/posting here, I've never witnessed anything quite like that, but I'm also aware that a number of posters have previously been banned. WTF did they have to do?


----------



## Balbi (Jun 17, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I know it's got its major faults but I'd expect better from The Guardian on this.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/jun/17/nigellalawson-thepeople


 

Can't stomach Rod Liddle? There's always fucking Greenslade.

His attempt to work in a fat joke as well, I mean, for fucks sake :angry:


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2013)

So, this isn't even the first time something like this has happened. Here is a link to a 2012 Daily Mail article where Saatchi is up to something similar. Sorry if you hate DM links, I do understand and maybe shouldn't post them really.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...fe-Nigella-Lawsons-mouth-bid-silence-her.html


----------



## 8den (Jun 17, 2013)

Saatchi grapping Lawson by the throat was a "playful tiff". This just in, Tyson biting off Evander Holfield's ear, "just rough housing"


----------



## Balbi (Jun 17, 2013)

Passion of the Christ a minor scuffle.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

andysays said:


> Sorry, I'm genuinely not trying to criticise or second guess you, but given what I've just read on this thread, which appears to include someone completely fabricating another poster's quotes three times as well as the more obvious shit, I'm utterly amazed at your response.
> 
> In the admitted short time I've been reading/posting here, I've never witnessed anything quite like that, but I'm also aware that a number of posters have previously been banned. WTF did they have to do?


A lot of threads go through the dwyer phase as he trolls away and witters on. However, just becasue it's become one of the urban rituals, it begs a question of how long it should go on. He's more inventive and persistent than the average troll, but should probably be judged the same as any other self important prat who takes offensive lines of argument to play a game. Suppose I'm not really into permabans, but regular and swiftly enforced week or month long holidays might be suitable. Reason I'd go that far is this stuff is very really for many posters. Should be zero tolerance for people playing games with dv.


----------



## Itziko (Jun 17, 2013)

Favelado said:


> So, this isn't even the first time something like this has happened. Here is a link to a 2012 Daily Mail article where Saatchi is up to something similar. Sorry if you hate DM links, I do understand and maybe shouldn't post them really.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...fe-Nigella-Lawsons-mouth-bid-silence-her.html


 
It reminds me of one of my dad's favourite sayings to my mum (and to us, his daughters): "ladies, you look prettier with your mouth shut" . He was Saatchi's generation, so not surprised.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what's the difference between a chef and a cook?


the consensus in the trade is that a chef is more about creating original dishes, or his/her own interpretations of the classics


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Yeah we definitely ban too easily/don't ban enough/give poster too many chances/are too strict/are too reasonable/are too unfair/unbiased/biased/too lenient/too tough etc etc etc.


Yeh i've noticed that too


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

Wilf said:


> just becasue it's become one of the urban rituals, it begs a question of how long it should go on.


 

Hi wilf.

nothin' personal, and top post - however that is an incorrect usage of 'begs the question'.

/personal pedantic bugbear.


----------



## marty21 (Jun 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> sadly it doesn't always work this way.


 true


----------



## agricola (Jun 17, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Passion of the Christ a minor scuffle.


 
You've definately nailed that one, though one imagines the more religious types will be a bit cross with you.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 17, 2013)

Nick Griffin has tweeted 'If i had the opportunity to  squeeze Nigella Lawson  her throat wouldn't be my first choice.'
Matt Collins replied 'Huge racist penis makes tit joke'


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2013)

agricola said:


> You've definately nailed that one, though one imagines the more religious types will be a bit cross with you.


And you can stake your life on that.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> Hi wilf.
> 
> nothin' personal, and top post - however that is an incorrect usage of 'begs the question'.
> 
> /personal pedantic bugbear.


 
Is usage a countable noun though? Oooh, there's a debate to be had there.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Is usage a countable noun though? Oooh, there's a debate to be had there.


 

your probably not rong....


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I think libelling editor personally might do it.


I can think of at least one poster who got banned because of that


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

verr droll

/would prefer more husbands stopped being abusive rather than suggesting women should leave them.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> Hi wilf.
> 
> nothin' personal, and top post - however that is an incorrect usage of 'begs the question'.
> 
> /personal pedantic bugbear.


FYI:


> Many English speakers use "begs the question" to mean "raises the question", "evades the question", or even "ignores the question", and follow that phrase with the question, for example: "this year's deficit is half a trillion dollars, which begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" Apart from philosophical, logical, grammatical and legal contexts, some authorities deem such usage to no longer be mistaken.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Is usage a countable noun though? Oooh, there's a debate to be had there.


  At least something good will come from this sorry thread.


----------



## Firky (Jun 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> ie, a chef is a professional cook, unless they happen to be working professionally in a role normally filled by a woman, in which case they're just a cook.


 

My ex is a chef and I am pretty sure she is a woman.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> I can think of at least one poster who got banned because of that


I can't, as it happens, not that it's not important or relevant to this discussion.

The same rules apply to all: if someone persistently posts up defamatory content and refuses to remove that content, then they can expect to get banned.


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

Firky said:


> My ex is a chef and I am pretty sure she is a woman.


 
i think you may be missing my point.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 17, 2013)

Firky said:


> My ex is a chef and I am pretty sure she is a woman.


 

Can you ever be 100% sure, though?


----------



## Firky (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> verr droll
> 
> /would prefer more husbands stopped being abusive rather than suggesting women should leave them.


 
It's not always men who are the abusers (although more often than not it is).


----------



## Garek (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> /would prefer more husbands stopped being abusive rather than suggesting women should leave them.


 

Agreed. Problem with the narrative of 'leave him/her' has always been the onus shift from the abuser to the abused.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> FYI:


 
it's meaning is changing due to people misunderstanding what it means - by that token it's Wrongy McWrongstein.


----------



## Firky (Jun 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> i think you may be missing my point.


 

Got your point; I was just being unnecessarily pedantic, sorry


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 17, 2013)

bloody pendents


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

'Prompts the question' would be a far better way of putting it.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> bloody pendents


 
it's a slippery slope. Today it's misinterpreting popular logical fallacies in which a qualifying assumption is presumed to be true in the absence of any evidence to support it - tomorrow it's kids rioting and stealing bags of basmati rice from poundstores in broad daylight... oh wait


----------



## cesare (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> 'Prompts the question' would be a far better way of putting it.


Or begs for the question


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> it's meaning is changing due to people misunderstanding what it means - by that token it's Wrongy McWrongstein.


Language is always evolving and changing, and endlessly griping about a popular change in common usage isn't going to change that. Get with it daddy-o!


----------



## Firky (Jun 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> Or begs for the question


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> Or begs for the question


 
i think your post is wrong because it's incorrect. <--- begging the question.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Language is always evolving and changing, and endlessly griping about a popular change in common usage isn't going to change that. Get with it daddy-o!


 
I agree. Usage is king! The "mistakes" usually become the new rules. Split your infintives people!


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> I can't, as it happens, not that it's not important or relevant to this discussion.
> 
> The same rules apply to all: if someone persistently posts up defamatory content and refuses to remove that content, then they can expect to get banned.


that's totally reasonable.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> i think your post is wrong because it's incorrect. <--- begging the question.


If you're going to vie for the title of urban's most pedantic poster and set about disrupting threads with all this yawn-worthy nitpicking, at least make some bloody effort to punctuate your own posts properly.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> If you're going to vie for the title of urban's most pedantic poster and set about disrupting threads with all this yawn-worthy nitpicking, at least make some bloody effort to punctuate your own posts properly.


You mean _capitalise_?


----------



## cesare (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> i think your post is wrong because it's incorrect. <--- begging the question.


I know the difference between begging the question, and begging for the question - thanks.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You mean _capitalise_?


 
And capitalise, yes. Take a look at his other posts.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Language is always evolving and changing, and endlessly griping about a popular change in common usage isn't going to change that. Get with it daddy-o!


 
why give in to the triumph of mediocrity. we're better than this!


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> And capitalise, yes. Take a look at his other posts.


I for one am appalled.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> why give in to the triumph of mediocrity. we're better than this!


Then make some chuffin' effort yourself.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> If you're going to vie for the title of urban's most pedantic poster and set about disrupting threads with all this yawn-worthy nitpicking, at least make some bloody effort to punctuate your own posts properly.


 
haha fuck off.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 17, 2013)

For shame.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> why give in to the triumph of mediocrity. we're better than this!


 
have you not met us?


----------



## spliff (Jun 17, 2013)

As this has morphed into a language thread can we look at Saatchi's statement   _"........ after the story broke yesterday morning I told Nigella to take the kids off till the dust settled." _
So the power and decision making is with him, not that she fucked off with the kids.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

Baby Eating Grammatists.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2013)

Back on-topic - Only 2 posters have let the side down on this thread. I, for one, am relieved - it could have been worse.
e2a: And, let's be honest, If you had to guess who one of them would be, at the outset, Dwyer would've been most posters' prediction


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 17, 2013)

There are numerous grammar and presentation errors in pissflap's posts up with which I shall not put.



Or is it "will not put"? Hmmmm.


----------



## Firky (Jun 17, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> Back on-topic - Only 2 posters have let the side down on this thread. I, for one, am relieved - it could have been worse.
> e2a: And, let's be honest, If you had to guess who onhe of them mwould be, at the outset, Dwyer would've been most posters' prediction


 

I think this thread would have gone very differently if Gromit or JC2 were on it.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> There are numerous grammar and presentation errors in pissflap's posts up with which I shall not put.
> 
> 
> 
> Or is it "will not put"? Hmmmm.


 
this ain't about grammar - this is about TRUTH!



and possibly freedom.


maybe justice.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2013)

Firky said:


> I think this thread would have gone very differently if Gromit or JC2 were on it.


Yes, quite possibly, though JC2's more the compulsive contrarian, rather than an out-and-out twat like Dwyer. At least Johnny's reasonable, though irksome


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 17, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Baby Eating Grammatists.


 

Grammarians.


----------



## laptop (Jun 17, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Grammarians.


 
No, a "grammatist" would be someone who discriminates unjustly on the basis of grammat. A valid neoligism, if not what was meant


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

Grammazi.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 17, 2013)

Grammarati.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2013)

Grammaton Cleric


----------



## Schmetterling (Jun 17, 2013)

spliff said:


> As this has morphed into a language thread can we look at Saatchi's statement _"........ after the story broke yesterday morning I told Nigella to take the kids off till the dust settled." _
> So the power and decision making is with him, not that she fucked off with the kids.


 
Yep; noticed that too.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> Grammarati.


 Gramminati - _noun_. Person who believes interdimensional lizards are undermining our language.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

Gracist?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

Gandalf the Gray - noun. A wizard, into 50 Shades of Hobbit.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

Grey.


/hides


----------



## cesare (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> Grey.
> 
> 
> /hides


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> Grey.
> 
> 
> /hides


 Do you mean I've got the color wrong?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> Grammazi.


 
Talented but flawed striker, who despite his silky skills never lived up to his initial promise.

Now running a pub on the Costa.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2013)

laptop said:


> No, a "grammatist" would be someone who discriminates unjustly on the basis of grammat. A valid neoligism, if not what was meant


Are you actually a pedant, or merely being pedantic* ?*


----------



## Sirena (Jun 17, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Are you actually a pedant, or merely being pedantic.


missing a question  mark, there....


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2013)

Sirena said:


> missing a question mark, there....


!


----------



## Firky (Jun 17, 2013)

If you're using a smilie it qualifies as punctuation


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Do you mean I've got the color wrong?


 
You got the colour right but you spelled it in American, that is to say you spelled it wrong.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2013)




----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> You got the colour right but you spelled it in American, that is to say you spelled it wrong.


Eye noes.


----------



## laptop (Jun 17, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Are you actually a pedant, or merely being pedantic* ?*


 
I am (among other things) a _*professional*_ pedant.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 17, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I know it's got its major faults but I'd expect better from The Guardian on this.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/jun/17/nigellalawson-thepeople


 

along with Simon Jenkins, one of the biggest divs on the Graun - except Greenslades normally buried in media section, unlike Jenkins with his  embarassing leader pieces.


----------



## Firky (Jun 17, 2013)

cantsin said:


> along with Simon Jenkins, one of the biggest divs on the Graun - except Greenslades normally buried in media section, unlike Jenkins with his embarassing leader pieces.


 

Don't forget Patrick Kingsley.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 17, 2013)

if this is going on in broad daylight in the middle of the street fuck knows what hes like behind the door .


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2013)

laptop said:


> I am (among other things) a _*professional*_ pedant.


 Are you paid to be a pedant, or just to be pedantic?


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 17, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> The vile growth gets it just fine. He's just going for an opening gambit of denial, and playing the only possible line of spin that in any way supports that. I'd imagine he'll see how it sits with the papers for a couple of weeks, and if things look like it'll blow over he'll stage a couple of family outings with prior notification to photographers. If it hasn't worked, he can go for a mea culpa, blame whatever personal demon he's happy to be associated with and check into rehab, whilst preparing for a redemption campaign in 4 months (my battle with whatever, etc)
> 
> Hopefully though, she's already got Raymond Tooth/Ayesha Vardag/similar level of legal pitbull preparing to carve huge chunks out of his fortune. It's too much to hope that'll ever be ruined, but with a bit of luck he might lose enough to make him cry.


 
the filth are saying theyre looking at the photos too .


----------



## rover07 (Jun 17, 2013)

Turns out, it was all a misunderstanding. So that's that settled.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

presumably you're all going to apologise to philip dwyer now?


----------



## Itziko (Jun 17, 2013)

rover07 said:


> Turns out, it was all a misunderstanding. So that's that settled.


 
No. It was just *playful*, didn't you heard him?! The problem with you, reds and feminazis , is that you have no sense of humour! 

This may have ben posted alredy, but...

Nick Griffin keeping up to date with current feminist debate


----------



## JHE (Jun 17, 2013)

Itziko said:


> Nick Griffin keeping up to date with current feminist debate


 

It's a charmless and witless remark, but unlike some of his other stuff, it won't do him any harm at all.


----------



## rover07 (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> presumably you're all going to apologise to philip dwyer now?



Phillip


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2013)

Itziko said:


> No. It was just *playful*, didn't you heard him?! The problem with you, reds and feminazis , is that you have no sense of humour!
> 
> This may have ben posted alredy, but...
> 
> Nick Griffin keeping up to date with current feminist debate


 
Whereas, if it were Griffin to be squeezed, the throat would certainly be right up there in my top one choices.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 17, 2013)

Balls. Ball, anyway.


----------



## rover07 (Jun 17, 2013)

What was the *playful* nose tweaking about? Has this been analysed by the Urban collective?


----------



## laptop (Jun 17, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Are you paid to be a pedant, or just to be pedantic?


 
Only an amateur pedant would even think about answering that question for free


----------



## laptop (Jun 17, 2013)

rover07 said:


> What was the *playful* nose tweaking about? Has this been analysed by the Urban collective?


 
Weakest of weak excuses. The end.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 17, 2013)

rover07 said:


> What was the *playful* nose tweaking about? Has this been analysed by the Urban collective?


 
Yes.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

rover07 said:


> Phillip


 
FUUUUUUUUU!!!!


----------



## rover07 (Jun 17, 2013)

8ball said:


> Yes.



Nuts. What page?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 17, 2013)

everybody nose


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> everybody nose


 No, stril don't know...


----------



## toggle (Jun 17, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Whereas, if it were Griffin to be squeezed, the throat would certainly be right up there in my top one choices.


 
i was about to say something very similar.

or squeeze his balls so hard they fall off


----------



## thriller (Jun 17, 2013)

finding it hard to give it shit, tbh. she looks like she has forgiven him. move on.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 17, 2013)

he only has one ball the other fell off when he was four

because that's what happens to nazis


----------



## 8ball (Jun 17, 2013)

<crosses legs>


----------



## trashpony (Jun 17, 2013)

thriller said:


> finding it hard to give it shit, tbh. she looks like she has forgiven him. move on.


If she'd forgiven him, she'd have made a public statement.

And even if she had, so what? Bored now are you?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

thriller said:


> finding it hard to give it shit, tbh. she looks like she has forgiven him. move on.


 Thread repeats itself once as history, twice as farce.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 17, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I'd just say cook is an amateur, with the exception being someone preparing traditional home-cooking in large volume (i.e. a school), while a chef is someone doing it professionally.


I think the difference stares us in the face - it's one of terminology.

A cook is someone who *cooks*. The word "chef" means "chief" or "manager" - he or she is the person who manages the entire kitchen of cooks. It may well be - and often is the case - that the chef will have served his or her time as a cook, rising through the ranks to chefdom. It may even be that the chef occasionally cooks things - but really, his (or her) job is to supervise a pretty complex and time-dependent operation like a restaurant kitchen and take responsibility in the final instance for making sure that the dishes that appear on the diners' tables are to their satisfaction and the benefit of the restaurant owner's bottom line.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> he only has one ball the other fell off when he was four
> 
> because that's what happens to nazis


 
Albert Hall, or other lesser halls if you insist on being northern.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

thriller said:


> <snip>she looks like she has forgiven him. move on.


So what?   A lot of DV victims refuse to press charges the first few (or more) times, even when they called the police or asked somebody to call the police on their behalf.  Refusing to allow the law to take this further this time doesn't mean that it was harmless.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 17, 2013)

Itziko said:


> No. It was just *playful*, didn't you heard him?! The problem with you, reds and feminazis , is that you have no sense of humour!


 
ive a sense of humour, and my sense is such that i think it would be as funny as fuck that everytime Saatchi walks down the street someone walks up and takes him by the throat...and then says afterwards_...i was only playing...I knew hed see the funny side and there was no malice intended ._
If  that become a long running joke id fairly piss myself, and i suspect he might too .


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 17, 2013)

thriller said:


> finding it hard to give it shit, tbh. she looks like she has forgiven him. move on.


 
that's ok then, is it? ffs, how would you feel if it was someone you knew, a friend or a relative? Would you be so dismissive and sneery then?


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 17, 2013)

Greebo said:


> So what? A lot of DV victims refuse to press charges the first few (or more) times, even when they called the police or asked somebody to call the police on their behalf. Refusing to allow the law to take this further this time doesn't mean that it was harmless.


 
is there not some law that allows the filth to circumvent this and prosecute regardless though ? I thought there was .


----------



## cesare (Jun 17, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> ive a sense of humour, and my sense is such that i think it would be as funny as fuck that everytime Saatchi walks down the street someone walks up and takes him by the throat...and then says afterwards_...i was only playing...I knew hed see the funny side and there was no malice intended ._
> If  that become a long running joke id fairly piss myself, and i suspect he might too .


Random people tweaking his nose, people putting their hands over his mouth when he starts talking ...


----------



## 8ball (Jun 17, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> is there not some law that allows the filth to circumvent this though ? I thought there was .


 
Yes, but afaik if there is no persisting evidence of harm it's pretty difficult if the complainant is siding with the abuser.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> Random people tweaking his nose, people putting their hands over his mouth when he starts talking ...


 
lets hope the scamps dont give their sweaty anus a good scratch first


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 17, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> is there not some law that allows the filth to circumvent this though ? I thought there was .


 

It'll depend on the severity of the case tbh.  It's always preferred if those giving evidence are doing so through choice as opposed to through court order; the courts would prefer not to end up in situations where they've taken a case to court against the will of the victim, order the victim to give evidence and the victim goes on the run.  It ends up being a huge waste of money and time.


----------



## harpo (Jun 17, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> is there not some law that allows the filth to circumvent this and prosecute regardless
> 
> though ? I thought there was .


 


Public Order Offence?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> Random people tweaking his nose, people putting their hands over his mouth when he starts talking ...


My preference would be for Damien Hirst to cut him in half and suspend him in a tank of formaldehyde.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 17, 2013)

Wilf said:


> My preference would be for Damien Hirst to cut him in half and suspend him in a tank of formaldehyde.


 

encrusted in diamante


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> is there not some law that allows the filth to circumvent this though ? I thought there was .


 
I'm not sure.  The last time (a few years ago now) that I knew somebody who was on the receiving end of DV, after she'd asked the police not to take it further, they took the boyfriend out to their car, kept it parked up, and had a very long talk with him before letting him go.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 17, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> It'll depend on the severity of the case tbh. It's always preferred if those giving evidence are doing so through choice as opposed to through court order; the courts would prefer not to end up in situations where they've taken a case to court against the will of the victim, order the victim to give evidence and the victim goes on the run. It ends up being a huge waste of money and time.


 
photos are pretty compelling evidence though

bleh...anyway I suppose your right and its a very ugly and unpleasant situation no matter what happens.
If she divorces she should take him to the cleaners I reckon .


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 17, 2013)

Greebo said:


> I'm not sure. The last time (a few years ago now) that I knew somebody who was on the receiving end of DV, after she'd asked the police not to take it further, they took the boyfriend out to their car, kept it parked up, and had a very long talk with him before letting him go.


 
Id like to see the filth at least feel his collar a bit..preferably round the neck region .


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Id like to see the filth at least feel his collar a bit..preferably round the neck region .


 
That's where most collars are, tbf.


----------



## youngian (Jun 17, 2013)

I'm just surprised Nigella Lawson has said anything that could provoke an emotional reaction.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 17, 2013)

harpo said:


> Public Order Offence?


 
well theres that too

but i was thinking of some law that was brought in to bring charges regardless of whether the victim wanted a prosecution, because all too often they dont .


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 17, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> That's where most collars are, tbf.


 
youre so sharp you should be in the sweeney


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

in theory they can. in practice, it's simply impractical in the vast majority of cases. also tbh, i think it's generally good practice to encourage the victims of DV to take control of the situation themselves (and give them the tools to do so) rather than taking the control away from them (again).


----------



## harpo (Jun 17, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> well theres that too
> 
> but i was thinking of some law that was brought in to bring charges regardless of whether the victim wanted a prosecution, because all too often they dont .


 
That's how they would do it in the absence of a complaint from Nigella. If they did. The act becomes one against 'the public'.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 17, 2013)

Maybe all his business associates can have a go now they know its an acceptable way of dealing with disputes


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> One day ban duly delivered for dwyer.


 
One day? Oh, well done!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Yes. People often like to tell me how long someone should be banned for.


 
I'm not going to tell you how long to ban someone for, but I am going to comment that personally I don't think that a 24 hour ban for such shit is a particularly harsh punishment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Fucking hell, if that's a playful tiff, I'd hate to see him angry


 
You can bet that if someone grabbed his neck, and then tried to pass it off as something "playful", the rancid little weasel-dick would want them prosecuted to the full extent of the law.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

andysays said:


> Just out of interest, what does it take to get permanently banned round here?


 
Genocide.

Or dissing Cardiff City FC.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Genocide.
> 
> Or dissing Cardiff City FC.


 
...or spamming.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

Greebo said:


> ...or spamming.


 
And if you spam *and* diss CCFC, he'll hunt you down and kill you with no more compunction than a redneck killing a raccoon.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 17, 2013)

are they a soccer team?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

thriller said:


> finding it hard to give it shit, tbh. she looks like she has forgiven him. move on.


 
People find it hard to give a shit about you, so you're in good company, no-mark.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> are they a soccer team?


 
I've been informed that they believe themselves to be, and that some of their fans are likewise afflicted with delusions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> is there not some law that allows the filth to circumvent this and prosecute regardless though ? I thought there was .


 
yes. They can investigate and decide to bring charges themselves if there's enough of a case.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've been informed that they believe themselves to be, and that some of their fans are likewise afflicted with delusions.


 
Just the genocide and spamming to go, and it'll be raccoon time for you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> photos are pretty compelling evidence though


 
Unfortunately, that's not true. Sure, you can say "the photo represents a moment frozen in time", but take that into court and you find that the "moment frozen in time" is entirely a matter of interpretation, which is why Shitchi is playing the "playful tiff" _spiel_.



> bleh...anyway I suppose your right and its a very ugly and unpleasant situation no matter what happens.
> If she divorces she should take him to the cleaners I reckon .


 
You can bet the worm-faced dogfucker got her to sign a pre-nuptial agreement. He is a Tory, after all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Just the genocide and spamming to go, and it'll be raccoon time for you.


 
YYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I think the difference stares us in the face - it's one of terminology.
> 
> A cook is someone who *cooks*. The word "chef" means "chief" or "manager" - he or she is the person who manages the entire kitchen of cooks. It may well be - and often is the case - that the chef will have served his or her time as a cook, rising through the ranks to chefdom. It may even be that the chef occasionally cooks things - but really, his (or her) job is to supervise a pretty complex and time-dependent operation like a restaurant kitchen and take responsibility in the final instance for making sure that the dishes that appear on the diners' tables are to their satisfaction and the benefit of the restaurant owner's bottom line.


 
Yeah but we've long since translated the French word and it's meaning into English and it's taken on its own connotations and meaning. "Chef" is "boss/chief" in French originally outside of a culinary context but if you were a professional, qualified preparer of food in a one man kitchen in London, or France for that matter, you'd still be the chef and not a cook, even though you were supervising precisely no-one except yourself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

Wilf said:


> My preference would be for Damien Hirst to cut him in half and suspend him in a tank of formaldehyde.


 
A tank of rancid dosser-piss.
Why waste good formaldehyde, eh?


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 17, 2013)

its a pity thatch wasnt embalmed . Then damien hirst could have cut both their heads off, stuck them on each others bodies and had them strangling each other..like some sort of ironic social commentary

and then bring in the legion of tramps and do gallons of hepatitis piss all over them, naturally .


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2013)

Homeless people have hepatitis then.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 17, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Homeless people have hepatitis then.


Proper minefield this thread.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 17, 2013)

ffs Casually Red plenty of people who aren't homeless have hepatitis. Why so fucking judgemental?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Genocide.


 
TBF there's two sides to every story.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 17, 2013)

im not being judgemental...ffs dont start..it was simply the nastiest type of piss i could think of at that particular moment . Nothing more .


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2013)

...or just made to watch an endless loop of her shite cooking programmes.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 17, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> im not being judgemental...ffs dont start..it was simply the nastiest type of piss i could think of at that particular moment . Nothing more .


 
Oh well,that makes it ok then.

Twat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> im not being judgemental...ffs dont start..it was simply the nastiest type of piss i could think of at that particular moment . Nothing more .


 
TBF, the worst type of piss I could think of was Tory piss, but frankly Saatchi would pop a boner over being soaked in the piss of his ideological brethren. He might even shoot his dead wad.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 17, 2013)

> Twat.


 
please stop using loaded terms like that, thankyou .


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, the worst type of piss I could think of was Tory piss, but frankly Saatchi would pop a boner over being soaked in the piss of his ideological brethren. He might even shoot his dead wad.


 
he probably pays good money for it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

brogdale said:


> ...or just made to watch an endless loop of her shite cooking programmes.


 
They're not really "cooking programmes", though. They're aspirational lifestyle programmes with some recipes and basic kitchen tuition included, and they're very popular with the demographic they're made to (pardon the pun!) cater for.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're not really "cooking programmes", though. They're aspirational lifestyle programmes with some recipes and basic kitchen tuition included, and they're very popular with the demographic they're made to (pardon the pun!) cater for.


 
I'll take your word for it. I saw one once that seemed to consist of cooking with absurdly expensive stuff that came (wrapped in brown paper) from Chelsea delis. Then she kept on tottering back to the fridge in her dressing gown to chow down some ice-cream or summat. All the while surrounded by gurning chums and family. Utter shite.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 17, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> please stop using loaded terms like that, thankyou .


 
Oh do one, fuckstick.


----------



## toggle (Jun 17, 2013)

he's been cautioned, he's accepted he did something wrong. why are there still morons who are determined to make her being assaulted into a discussion about her value as a person?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 17, 2013)

He got a caution, is that it? ffs


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2013)

Just a mere strangling. Chill out lefty-assholes.


----------



## toggle (Jun 17, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> He got a caution, is that it? ffs


 
http://news.sky.com/story/1104943/saatchi-cautioned-for-assault-of-nigella-lawson


----------



## madamv (Jun 17, 2013)

I think I just saw the front page of a paper with another pic, of another time, with his hand over her mouth.  If that's also in aggression, it beggars belief.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> and then bring in the legion of tramps and do gallons of hepatitis piss all over them, naturally .


 
You're a nasty piece of work.


----------



## toggle (Jun 18, 2013)

madamv said:


> I think I just saw the front page of a paper with another pic, of another time, with his hand over her mouth. If that's also in aggression, it beggars belief.


 
not really. i think by the time it gets physical, he's likey been fucking with her head long enough to feel confident to do so without reprecussion


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 18, 2013)

could not be arsed


----------



## 8den (Jun 18, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> He got a caution, is that it? ffs


 
A better question is how many "playful tiff's" end up getting a police caution?


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

If Lawson didn't want to press charges would the police drop it to a caution?


----------



## 8den (Jun 18, 2013)

Yes Firky I think that's what would happen (that would be in my limited lay person opinion)


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Accepting a caution means that he's accepted he's guilty, doesn't it? I wonder if it was a simple caution, or a conditional one.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

When I was cautioned I had to admit guilt otherwise it would have gone to court.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 18, 2013)

8den said:


> A better question is how many "playful tiff's" end up getting a police caution?


 
Too many, would be my guess.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> When I was cautioned I had to admit guilt otherwise it would have gone to court.


Aye, it forms part of your criminal record unless you deny it, go to court and force the issue of guilt/innocence there.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Accepting a caution means that he's accepted he's guilty, doesn't it? I wonder if it was a simple caution, or a conditional one.


 
Although wouldn't it be really difficult for him to say otherwise given the photos and the witnesses?


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Although wouldn't it be really difficult for him to say otherwise given the photos and the witnesses?


Probably. I suppose he's just been pragmatic about it.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 18, 2013)

toggle said:


> not really. i think by the time it gets physical, he's likey been fucking with her head long enough to feel confident to do so without reprecussion


 
well as she appears to have openly broken down in tears in the middle of it Id sadly say she knows shes in for a night of it , fearful of what lies ahead . Probably more mental than physical but no doubt still quite unpleasant .
And if thats not bad enough then theres the added humiliation of a whole country discussing her predicament . I dont give a fuck about her politics, lineage or cookery shows . Still feel very sorry for her .


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

Does that mean he's _officially_ guilty of dv (caution for assault)?


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Does that mean he's _officially_ guilty of dv (caution for assault)?


He's accepted that he's guilty of it in accepting the caution, so yes. Innocent until proven guilty, unless you accept that you're guilty.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Probably. I suppose he's just been pragmatic about it.


 
or more specifically his brief has told him to be in the interests of damage limitation and to avoid the possibility of it going further cop wise.

Safe bet though whatever humiliation he suffers hell take it out on someone ..no prizes for guessing.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

I bet he has mates high up in the MET and a shit hot solicitor.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 18, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Does that mean he's _officially_ guilty of dv (caution for assault)?


 
I think so, if you have to admit guilt to accept the caution.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

Things have moved pretty quickly today then, from denying the whole thing, through to a pre-arranged police interview and caution. Either the police have been quite proactive or there's been some three cornered manoeuvres between his solicitors, hers and the police (without her making a formal complaint).

Edit: maybe he got Max Clifford in...


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Things have moved pretty quickly today then, from denying the whole thing, through to a pre-arranged police interview and caution. Either the police have been quite proactive or there's been some three cornered manoeuvres between his solicitors, hers and the police (without her making a formal complaint).
> 
> Edit: maybe he got Max Clifford in...


5 hour interview, according to the Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigella-lawson-attacked-charles-saatchi-1959299


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 18, 2013)

Richard Littlejohn......


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> 5 hour interview, according to the Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigella-lawson-attacked-charles-saatchi-1959299


 I doubt the police had the guts to stick him in the cells between interviews. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 18, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Richard Littlejohn......


 
Only a matter of time before other odious shits come out of the woodwork to support the saatchi worm


----------



## Nylock (Jun 18, 2013)

Wilf said:


> I doubt the police had the guts to stick him in the cells between interviews. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.


It's a pity the police didn't engineer a 'fall' at the station -like they have done to members of the lower orders in the past...


----------



## Favelado (Jun 18, 2013)

Lucky Saatchi doesn't live on an estate. He'd be symptomatic of an entire section of society.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

Richard Littlejohn is one of the few people in this country who I could just about wish a horrible disease upon. Strangely enough, I'd have him even ahead of Nick Griffin in that respect (just).  It truly takes something to generate that response in me.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 18, 2013)

The BBC finally reports it....and the article clearly supports Saatchi. Wankers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22935683


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 18, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Things have moved pretty quickly today then, from denying the whole thing, through to a pre-arranged police interview and caution. Either the police have been quite proactive or there's been some three cornered manoeuvres between his solicitors, hers and the police (without her making a formal complaint).
> 
> Edit: maybe he got Max Clifford in...


 
Isn't Clifford still under investigation for alleged sexual offences though (yewtree iirc)? Wouldn't have thought he's doing much work at present.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Isn't Clifford still under investigation for alleged sexual offences though (yewtree iirc)? Wouldn't have thought he's doing much work at present.


 I know, a weak joke on my part.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 18, 2013)

Wilf said:


> I know, a weak joke on my part.


 
You should be embarassed.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> You should be embarassed.


 I was (trying to) highlight that the scumbags normal go to man is himself a scumbag.  Anyroad...


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 18, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> ....and the article clearly supports Saatchi. Wankers.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22935683



Which bit?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Which bit?


 
All of it, really.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 18, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> All of it, really.



In what way does it support him? 

I don't see that.


----------



## JimW (Jun 18, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> All of it, really.


 
I agree. Leaped out to me right off that they'd framed it entirely around  his denial and repeated his wording fairly straight in the title, even if in quotes.carries on in similar vein. A headline saying 'Saatchi defends himself" or similar would have been as short and less weighted to his spin.Even if you accept that's the stage the story's moved on to at the point they've published it's gone further than necessary to his side of things IMO


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Which bit?


 It's an uncritical repetition of the story he tried to spin about the incident (with no more than the fact he got cautioned added on at the end.  If he was cautioned, the police clearly didn't _believe_ his version of events).


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> In what way does it support him?
> 
> I don't see that.


 
Try reading it again.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 18, 2013)

Wilf said:


> It's an uncritical repetition of the story he tried to spin about the incident (with no more than the fact he got cautioned added on at the end.  If he was cautioned, the police clearly didn't _believe_ his version of events).



Well what else can they say? 

He's the only one who's given any kind of statement, there were no witnesses to quote, she's said nothing, so they've reported the facts. 

What would you liked to have seen in there?


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 18, 2013)

Nylock said:


> Only a matter of time before other odious shits come out of the woodwork to support the saatchi worm


 
theyre probably all in the same fancy arsed gentlemans club or whatever


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Try reading it again.


 It'll be interesting to see if they develop some journalistic ethics and improve on the story tomorrow.  Newswise, the story of a secretive and politically connected multimillionaire committing a violent act in public and taking a caution deserves better.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Well what else can they say?
> 
> He's the only one who's given any kind of statement, there were no witnesses to quote, she's said nothing, so they've reported the facts.
> 
> What would you liked to have seen in there?


 Yes there were, there were several.  Equally, reporting his defence isn't reporting 'facts' (except, literally, that he came up with that case).


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Well what else can they say?
> 
> He's the only one who's given any kind of statement, there were no witnesses to quote, she's said nothing, so they've reported the facts.
> 
> What would you liked to have seen in there?


 
Id mostly agree with you on that . Plus its written down. If theres a newsreader reading it they can do a dramatic pauseor tone of voice to convey a certain effect . As it stands they can only really go on the hard data, which is pretty much what theyve done . Theyve juxtaposed his denials of wrongdoing with the fact hes actually been cautioned by the fuzz, for wrongdoing.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 18, 2013)

Yeah ok. Comparing the BBC report with the Mirror one I see what you mean.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Well what else can they say?
> 
> He's the only one who's given any kind of statement, there were no witnesses to quote, she's said nothing, so they've reported the facts.
> 
> What would you liked to have seen in there?


 
He hasn't given a statement, he's given a weaselly attempt at making out it was 'playful' and it was all over by the time they got home. It's not factual at all. 

Also, there were several witnesses - these have been quoted in other news sources.

I'd have liked to seen even the vaguest attempt at actual reporting, not the wholesale reproduction of his crap attempt at an excuse for his actions. Note there was no apology or any attempt to take responsibility for what he did. That would have been good too.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 18, 2013)

Fuck's sake the Mirror and the Daily Mail have more reporting in their articles than the BBC one does. For SHAME.


----------



## 8den (Jun 18, 2013)

JimW said:


> I agree. Leaped out to me right off that they'd framed it entirely around his denial and repeated his wording fairly straight in the title, even if in quotes.carries on in similar vein. A headline saying 'Saatchi defends himself" or similar would have been as short and less weighted to his spin.Even if you accept that's the stage the story's moved on to at the point they've published it's gone further than necessary to his side of things IMO


 
It's a difficult job for a journalist to report. Whether they believe Saatchi's story is irrelevant, there's no other side to report. They can't report Nigella's statement because she hasn't made one. The Police consider the matter closed with the caution. There's no statement from the photographer (either a pap, or someone who flogged their camera phone photos to the sunday people and signed a confidentiality agreement). No domestic violence charity is going to release a statement condemning Saatachi, since he's been not convicted of anything, it's a pretty much open and shut libel headfuck for charity (never mind the bad publicity he'd get from suing some charity, the legal threat presented by someone as wealthy as Saatachi would make it a kamazee run for the charity).

So essentially the BBC reported the story way the only way they could report it. Which is a bit shit.


(edit; I just read the posts above, that there were witnesses, which makes the above a little redundant).


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

I've also seen what the photographer said somewhere, just trying to find it.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

You can tell from the photos it was a pap, no DoF (zoom lens) and not something you get from camera phones fwiw.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I've also seen what the photographer said somewhere, just trying to find it.



In the Mirror piece you quoted.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> In the Mirror piece you quoted.


Yes, thanks!  @ self


----------



## wiskey (Jun 18, 2013)

Saatchi Cautioned for assault http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22947383

(sorry I think that's been posted already, I have really crappy signal)


----------



## thriller (Jun 18, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> that's ok then, is it? ffs, how would you feel if it was someone you knew, a friend or a relative? Would you be so dismissive and sneery then?


 
Meh. two very wealthy people having a minor disagreement. They'll resolve it. Intelligent enough to do so. If it were some council estate couple, then I'd worry.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 18, 2013)

Awww, it's like Phil spawned a mini-Phil


----------



## scalyboy (Jun 18, 2013)

thriller said:


> They'll resolve it. Intelligent enough to do so. If it were some council estate couple, then I'd worry.


 
Are you Richard Littlejohn in disguise?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 18, 2013)

pissflaps said:
			
		

> 'Prompts the question' would be a far better way of putting it.



Or raises the question.


----------



## fogbat (Jun 18, 2013)

thriller said:


> Meh. two very wealthy people having a minor disagreement. They'll resolve it. Intelligent enough to do so. If it were some council estate couple, then I'd worry.


LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I'M BEING CONTROVERSIAL!


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 18, 2013)

"cuntroversial"


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

thriller said:


> Meh. two very wealthy people having a minor disagreement. They'll resolve it. Intelligent enough to do so. If it were some council estate couple, then I'd worry.


 
It's not big and it's not clever.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jun 18, 2013)

BBC pushing the 'tiff' angle. Such spineless cunts.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 18, 2013)

mwgdrwg said:


> BBC pushing the 'tiff' angle. Such spineless cunts.


 
In Tudor times, they'd have portrayed the beheading of Anne Boleyn in the same way.


----------



## Santino (Jun 18, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> In Tudor times, they'd have portrayed the beheading of Anne Boleyn in the same way.


"I invited my wife to lie down with her neck beneath a heavy sword in order to emphasise my point."


----------



## yardbird (Jun 18, 2013)

mwgdrwg said:


> BBC pushing the 'tiff' angle. Such spineless cunts.


 
tbf R5 is now doing an hour phone-in about domestic abuse and he/men are getting a slating.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 18, 2013)

just had someone at work going on about how he fancied her and how she could do much better lol


----------



## Nylock (Jun 18, 2013)

thriller said:


> Meh. two very wealthy people having a minor disagreement. They'll resolve it. Intelligent enough to do so. If it were some council estate couple, then I'd worry.


You fucking plum...


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 18, 2013)

thriller said:


> Meh. two very wealthy people having a minor disagreement. They'll resolve it. Intelligent enough to do so. If it were some council estate couple, then I'd worry.


christ, one dick gets banned and another replaces him


----------



## killer b (Jun 18, 2013)

i'm trying hard not  to call thriller a cunt, 'cause that's blatantly what he's aiming for. the fucking weirdo.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jun 18, 2013)

obvious wind up attempt.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 18, 2013)

Yep, and have you noticed how the talking heads on the BBC etc. have been attempting to challenge 'our' preconceptions wrt DV by telling us earnestly that this is an issue that is found *not just* on council estates.


----------



## andysays (Jun 18, 2013)

thriller said:


> Meh. two very wealthy people having a minor disagreement. They'll resolve it. Intelligent enough to do so. If it were some council estate couple, then I'd worry.


 


I am a poseur and I don't care 
I like to make people stare 
I am a poseur and I don't care
I like to make people stare 

Exhibition is the name 
Voyeurism is the game 
Stereoscopic is the show 
Viewing time makes it grow 

My facade is just a fake 
Shock horror no escape 
Sensationalism for the feed 
Caricatures are what you breed 

Anti-art was the start 
Establishments like a laugh 
Yes we're very entertaining 
Overtones can be betraying


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 18, 2013)




----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

Well, I never.... Greenslade apologises!  http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/jun/18/nigellalawson-domestic-violence


----------



## Santino (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Well, I never.... Greenslade apologises!  http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/jun/18/nigellalawson-domestic-violence


 "I expressed myself badly"


----------



## killer b (Jun 18, 2013)

jack of kent gives this helpful comment on police cautions:



> Police cautions
> Charles Saatchi is reported today as having accepted a police caution for assault.  What this actually means is that (a) he has admitted an assault took place (which seems contrary to his public statements), (b) the police believe both there is evidence for an assault and there would have been a public interest in a prosecution – but (c) the police have decided instead to dispose of the case by means of a caution.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

Santino said:


> "I expressed myself badly"


 He's a wanker, and I can't for a second believe this came of his own volition. But at least someone with clout realised what a tit he was making of himself.


----------



## Sue (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> He's a wanker, and I can't for a second believe this came of his own volition. But at least someone with clout realised what a tit he was making of himself.


 
The comments thing wasn't enabled on the article or imagine there would've been loads, as there were on the Suzanne Moore piece. (On that there was the odd wanker but was generally sound -- and not a fan of SM in general but her piece was decent enough).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Probably. I suppose he's just been pragmatic about it.


 
While accepting the caution means accepting his guilt, I fear that you have a point about "pragmatism", i.e. Shitchi has been advised that accepting a caution "doesn't *really* mean you're guilty, because you haven't been prosecuted".
So, I'm afraid he's going to rationalise his caution as not being deserved for a "playful tiff", and take it out...well, whoever presents themselves, that he wouldn't risk a shoeing from, is the usual "order of business".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Richard Littlejohn......


 
What a worthless rat scrotum he continually proves himself to be.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> While accepting the caution means accepting his guilt, I fear that you have a point about "pragmatism", i.e. Shitchi has been advised that accepting a caution "doesn't *really* mean you're guilty, because you haven't been prosecuted".
> So, I'm afraid he's going to rationalise his caution as not being deserved for a "playful tiff", and take it out...well, whoever presents themselves, that he wouldn't risk a shoeing from, is the usual "order of business".


Yes. Given the choice between a caution (which isn't a criminal record although forms part of your criminal record, sir) and prosecution (there is evidence of your assault, and your version of events would only serve in mitigation regarding sentencing, sir); he went for the former.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> theyre probably all in the same fancy arsed gentlemans club or whatever


 
I doubt it. None of them are "gentlemen", after all. As the ruling classes have been telling us plebs forever: "Money cannot buy breeding".

And thank fuck for that! Who wants to be chinless, ffs?


----------



## Sue (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yes. Given the choice between a caution (which isn't a criminal record although forms part of your criminal record, sir) and prosecution (there is evidence of your assault, and your version of events would only serve in mitigation regarding sentencing, sir); he went for the former.


 
Yes, someone obviously told him his 'playful tiff/emphasising his point' bollocks wasn't playing well and it was best to draw a line under it before he got even more bad publicity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

killer b said:


> i'm trying hard not to call thriller a cunt, 'cause that's blatantly what he's aiming for. the fucking weirdo.


 
To be fair, he really can't help it. Being as sexually and physically inadequate as he is, how else is he going to get his jollies? No sane man or woman is going to want his sweaty hands on them, let alone his necrotic member *in* them. Winding people up is pretty much the only way he's capable of achieving sexual release.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Well, I never.... Greenslade apologises!  http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/jun/18/nigellalawson-domestic-violence


 
That is not an apology.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> That is not an apology.


Kinda is, mostly isn't. He can't make himself say I was wrong.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> That is not an apology.


Aye, he says he owes NL an apology (but doesn't provide one) and apologises to people who thought he'd taken leave of his senses (an apology for seemingly taking leave of his senses).


----------



## 8ball (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Kinda is, mostly isn't. He can't make himself say I was wrong.


 
He questioned whether pictures such as this tell the whole story or can be misinterpreted.  I think it's a fair point to make as it can be hard to know what to conclude from a series of pictures, and he said he was trying not to rush to judgment for personal reasons.  It's a better apology than I've seen come from a politician in a long time.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> That is not an apology.


 Not so much playing moral catchup as engaging in media catchup.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

He only really apologies to his colleagues (who are presumably more important to him than the woman he was writing about). Maybe I am nit picking but it is more of a life buoy for himself than an apology.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

8ball said:


> He questioned whether pictures such as this tell the whole story or can be misinterpreted.  I think it's a fair point to make as it can be hard to know what to conclude from a series of pictures, and he said he was trying not to rush to judgment for personal reasons.  *It's a better apology than I've seen come from a politician in a long time.*



Damning with faint praise, though.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Damning with faint praise, though.


 
Yeah, very faint. 

I just meant it's better than a lot of the passive-voice 'I'm sorry if any offense was caused'-type "apologies" that you get from the Westminster set (the ones where it's completely transparent that someone has been told to apologise by a senior or their party's media adviser).  It looks grudgingly sincere to me.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Damning with faint praise, though.


 This should be an exercise for Law students, quantifying how much better defendandants are than politicians. "Milord, my client did mug Mr Jarvis and several other pensioners, but at least he's 74% better than Neil Hamilton".


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

This is on BBC news (TV) now. A twenty second piece. Was quite fair TBH and covered the facts but nothing else.

Police followed up the pictures, charged a 70 year old worm, Lawson made no comment. Quoted the worm's statement.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Wilf said:


> This should be an exercise for Law students, quantifying how much better defendandants are than politicians. "Milord, my client did mug Mr Jarvis and several other pensioners, but at least he's 74% better than Neil Hamilton".


Isn't this what Hall's barrister tried to do, for sentencing mitigation? "It's only 13 victims compared to what Savile did" or words to that effect.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Isn't this what Hall's barrister tried to do, for sentencing mitigation? "It's only 13 victims compared to what Savile did" or words to that effect.


 Hadn't thought about that. I make a glib comment about 'our times' only only to be reminded that real life has got there first.   That sentence was astonishing.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> That is not an apology.


 

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/22/weekinreview/the-perfect-non-apology-apology.html


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jun 18, 2013)

8ball said:


> It's a better apology than I've seen come from a politician in a long time.


 

I might as well say it's better than any apology I've received from the greenfly that attacked my runner beans.


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 18, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> The BBC finally reports it....and the article clearly supports Saatchi. Wankers.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22935683


Complaint made

"The article, belatedly reporting the photographic evidence of Charles saatchi assaulting his wife, nigella lawson, belittled the offence of domestic abuse to a "playful tiff" and relegated the fact that mr Saatchi had admitted the offence and accepted a police caution to the end of the article. The bbc has recently had to apologise to the women for its role in facilitating Stuart halls abuse. That you now feel comfortable supporting an admitted wife beater shows you always cower before fame and fortune."


----------



## 8ball (Jun 18, 2013)

Didn't fancy working in a reference to Savile?


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Complaint made
> 
> "The article, belatedly reporting the photographic evidence of Charles saatchi assaulting his wife, nigella lawson, belittled the offence of domestic abuse to a "playful tiff" and relegated the fact that mr Saatchi had admitted the offence and accepted a police caution to the end of the article. The bbc has recently had to apologise to the women for its role in facilitating Stuart halls abuse. That you now feel comfortable supporting an admitted wife beater shows you always cower before fame and fortune."


 

It's notthe BBC describing it as a playful tiff but Saatchi.


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 18, 2013)

8ball said:


> Didn't fancy working in a reference to Savile?


Keeping it contemporary


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> It's the BBC describing it as a playful tiff but Saatchi.


But it is the bbc that decided to run Saachi's excuses as its title and first two paragraphs


----------



## 8ball (Jun 18, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> But it is the bbc that decided to run Saachi's excuses as its title and first two paragraphs


 
I think it could just be written from the POV that you're up to speed on the story so far.  If it's the first thing you've seen about it, then it's a bit limp to say the least.  Like others have done on this thread, I wouldn't go as far as to say it _supports_ Saatchi, but there's only one side of the story to report at this point.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> But it is the bbc that decided to run Saachi's excuses as its title and first two paragraphs


 

It certainly favours him and is in sharp contrast to what they aired on BBC News 24 earlier today which was very neutral. 

Not saying you're wasting your time or anything but the BBC will turn around and say, "his words, not ours".


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

Just as an aside, the whole case seems remarkably contained in a media sense. From what I've seen in the mail, mirror and the rest there's just been 3 events - the original attack, his spin on it in the Standard (?) and the police caution. Virtually nothing in terms of rumours, friends of friends, anonymous fluff. Quite possible she's doing a bit of dignified silence and he, whilst far from reclusive, shuns the media. Same time the lack of 'noise' round this story has left the media recycling the same facts. Presumably his lawyers and media drones have controlled his public image for decades and the press aren't going to break the habit of a lifetime and go in hard on him (even if the caution emboldens them a little).

edit: Suppose what I mean is at this point in a similar story, you'd be expecting quotes from his ex (or close to his ex) about the 'unreasonable behaviour' that brought their marriage to a halt.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jun 18, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Just as an aside, the whole case seems remarkably contained in a media sense. From what I've seen in the mail, mirror and the rest there's just been 3 events - the original attack, his spin on it in the Standard (?) and the police caution. Virtually nothing in terms of rumours, friends of friends, anonymous fluff.


 

He's extremely wealthy, has top notch legal representation, and is incredibly well connected in pr and media circles.  Within minutes of this going live calls will have been made to various newspaper owners and editors, reminding them that he knows the location of many bodies, and will not go down alone.

And as for Nigella, either she's decided to stick with him, or if she has any sense her lawyers will be politely advising his that if he doesn't want to be dragged through the tabloids in a very mucky divorce her settlement will need to be extremely reasonable.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 18, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> He's extremely wealthy, has top notch legal representation, and is incredibly well connected in pr and media circles. Within minutes of this going live calls will have been made to various newspaper owners and editors, reminding them that he knows the location of many bodies, and will not go down alone.


 
Yep.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> He's extremely wealthy, has top notch legal representation, and is incredibly well connected in pr and media circles. Within minutes of this going live calls will have been made to various newspaper owners and editors, reminding them that he knows the location of many bodies, and will not go down alone.
> 
> And as for Nigella, either she's decided to stick with him, or if she has any sense her lawyers will be politely advising his that if he doesn't want to be dragged through the tabloids in a very mucky divorce her settlement will need to be extremely reasonable.


 Well, that's the detail of what I had in mind. However, it still feels odd that the media management strategy for 'both sides' seems to be one of contained silence (which is yes, of course, in line with how saatchi plays it).  The default position today though is to get information out there, make snide attacks on the other side, deploy a stage army of sycophants etc.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 18, 2013)

Good on Martha Kearney on world at one on Radio 4 for a long interview with a woman who is an educated articulate woman who spent 11 years with a man who abused her.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> He's extremely wealthy, has top notch legal representation, and is incredibly well connected in pr and media circles.  Within minutes of this going live calls will have been made to various newspaper owners and editors, reminding them that he knows the location of many bodies, and will not go down alone.
> 
> And as for Nigella, either she's decided to stick with him, or if she has any sense her lawyers will be politely advising his that if he doesn't want to be dragged through the tabloids in a very mucky divorce her settlement will need to be extremely reasonable.



I also notice that it was NL and children that were instructed invited to leave the family home "until the dust settled" rather than him.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Good on Martha Kearney on world at one on Radio 4 for a long interview with a woman who is an educated articulate woman who spent 11 years with a man who abused her.


 
Why is 'educated' important enough to include here? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but that leaps out at me and baffles me. Is the suggestion that even those who have options still sometimes  are unable to leave?


----------



## trashpony (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why is 'educated' important enough to include here? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but that leaps out at me and baffles me. Is the suggestion that even those who have options still sometimes are unable to leave?


Should have been clearer - it was a point that the interviewee made several times about herself.

I do think it's harder to leave if you're financially dependent (although of course that and education are not necessarily linked)


----------



## xenon (Jun 18, 2013)

^ yep. Just heard that.


----------



## killer b (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why is 'educated' important enough to include here? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but that leaps out at me and baffles me. Is the suggestion that even those who have options still sometimes are unable to leave?


i've seen some people saying in the past few days that, as an articulate, independent woman, it's 'frustrating' that lawson hasn't left her abuser, as she should be an example to those less independent and articulate. examples of people like this are very much needed to show opinions like that up as the wrongheaded nonsense they are...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Should have been clearer - it was a point that the interviewee made several times about herself.
> 
> I do think it's harder to leave if you're financially dependent (although of course that and education are not necessarily linked)


 
Ok, ta for clarifying.


----------



## xenon (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why is 'educated' important enough to include here? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but that leaps out at me and baffles me. Is the suggestion that even those who have options still sometimes  are unable to leave?



I think it just means, made good radio, eloquent. Not hesitating etc. TBH I missed the very beginning and have no idea of the woman's educational background or whatever. Just ears pricked up when heard what it was about.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 18, 2013)

killer b said:


> i've seen some people saying in the past few days that, as an articulate, independent woman, it's 'frustrating' that lawson hasn't left her abuser, as she should be an example to those less independent and articulate. examples of people like this are very much needed to show opinions like that up as the wrongheaded nonsense they are...


 
Yes, like this idiotic woman


> An Australian DJ, Dunleavy, who is known as 'The Queen of Melbourne radio', said: "Nigella, like it or not, you're a beacon for women from all walks of life.
> 
> "If you want us to buy your books and watch your shows on how to run our kitchens, then we need you to make a stand on domestic violence."
> "Why, at about the same time the pictures went viral on the internet, did Nigella post a picture of a buttered, toasted bagel on her official Twitter page, as though nothing else was on her mind but food?
> ...


----------



## killer b (Jun 18, 2013)

'cowering from a bully'. cause that's what domestic violence is, not a confident, articulate woman getting a regular hiding behind closed doors from the partner you think is a sound bloke.


----------



## Sue (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yes. Given the choice between a caution (which isn't a criminal record although forms part of your criminal record, sir) and prosecution (there is evidence of your assault, and your version of events would only serve in mitigation regarding sentencing, sir); he went for the former.


 
So he obviously doesn't think he did anything wrong, despite accepting the caution. Really, his lawyer/PR advisor/anyone with half a brain should tell him to STFU .

'Saatchi told the Evening Standard – for which he is a columnist – on Tuesday: "Although Nigella made no complaint I volunteered to go to Charing Cross station and take a police caution after a discussion with my lawyer* because I thought it was better than the alternative, of this hanging over all of us for months*."'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2013/jun/18/charles-saatch-caution-nigella-lawson


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 18, 2013)

http://www.mcsaatchi.com/

click on 'philosophy'

/profit.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Sue said:


> So he obviously doesn't think he did anything wrong, despite accepting the caution. Really, his lawyer/PR advisor/anyone with half a brain should tell him to STFU .
> 
> 'Saatchi told the Evening Standard – for which he is a columnist – on Tuesday: "Although Nigella made no complaint I volunteered to go to Charing Cross station and take a police caution after a discussion with my lawyer* because I thought it was better than the alternative, of this hanging over all of us for months*."'
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2013/jun/18/charles-saatch-caution-nigella-lawson


I don't think he'll ever see his behaviour as anything other than justifiable and justified. Whether or not NL also perceives it the same way is a matter for her - but this is the environment that those kids have been brought up in for the past decade or so.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

Sue said:


> So he obviously doesn't think he did anything wrong, despite accepting the caution. Really, his lawyer/PR advisor/anyone with half a brain should tell him to STFU .
> 
> 'Saatchi told the Evening Standard – for which he is a columnist – on Tuesday: "Although Nigella made no complaint I volunteered to go to Charing Cross station and take a police caution after a discussion with my lawyer* because I thought it was better than the alternative, of this hanging over all of us for months*."'
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2013/jun/18/charles-saatch-caution-nigella-lawson


 The guardian story describes him as a 'columnist' for the Evening Standard which, living outside London, I didn't know (presumably an art column?).  I'm sure they'll take a stand and sack him now that he's accepted a caution for domestic violence.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> http://www.mcsaatchi.com/
> 
> click on 'philosophy'
> 
> /profit.


Brutal simplicity of thought = people behaving to him in the same way he behaves. So one imagines that he'll see the aesthetic appeal in being subjected to throttling, physical stifling of speech and tweaking of body parts in his day-to-day interactions with people going forward


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Brutal simplicity of thought = people behaving to him in the same way he behaves. So one imagines that he'll see the aesthetic appeal in being subjected to throttling, physical stifling of speech and tweaking of body parts in his day-to-day interactions with people going forward


 
A 'painful necessity' in his words.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yep, and have you noticed how the talking heads on the BBC etc. have been attempting to challenge 'our' preconceptions wrt DV by telling us earnestly that this is an issue that is found *not just* on council estates.


They do provoke a smile when they assume their prejudices are everyone's.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> They do provoke a smile when they assume their prejudices are everyone's.


 The Alan Partridge that lurks in every journalist.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 18, 2013)

I'm surprised no-one has vandalised the Saatchi Gallery at Duke of York's HQ, Kings Road, London SW3 4RY yet. That would certainly be a brutal simplicity of thought.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I'm surprised no-one has vandalised the Saatchi Gallery at Duke of York's HQ, Kings Road, London SW3 4RY yet. That would certainly be a brutal simplicity of thought.


Vandalising is illegal and immoral. Playful but firm remodelling is what we're after.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Vandalising is illegal and immoral. Playful but firm remodelling is what we're after.


 Certainly, to emphasise a point.


----------



## Poot (Jun 18, 2013)

Sue said:


> So he obviously doesn't think he did anything wrong, despite accepting the caution. Really, his lawyer/PR advisor/anyone with half a brain should tell him to STFU .
> 
> 'Saatchi told the Evening Standard – for which he is a columnist – on Tuesday: "Although Nigella made no complaint I volunteered to go to Charing Cross station and take a police caution after a discussion with my lawyer* because I thought it was better than the alternative, of this hanging over all of us for months*."'
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2013/jun/18/charles-saatch-caution-nigella-lawson



When he says "hanging over all of us" I think what he really means is "hanging over me"


----------



## laptop (Jun 18, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Vandalising is illegal and immoral. Playful but firm remodelling is what we're after.


 
Adding a work, or a facsimile of a work, to the collection would seem appropriate.

Suggestions?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

laptop said:


> Adding a work, or a facsimile of a work, to the collection would seem appropriate.
> 
> Suggestions?


Something in fuchsia?


----------



## dolly's gal (Jun 18, 2013)

Poot said:


> When he says "hanging over all of us" I think what he really means is "hanging over me"


 

it would be "hanging" over her too. she might just want to forget about it, we don't actually know


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 18, 2013)

laptop said:


> Adding a work, or a facsimile of a work, to the collection would seem appropriate.
> 
> Suggestions?


 
There's already some pretty apt stuff in his collection.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 18, 2013)

this picture sums up his contribution to modern art quite aptly i reckon


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

Charlie boy isn't just a collector, he had a hand in this one:
http://www.123rf.com/photo_7941254_scared-woman-victim-of-domestic-torture-and-violence.html


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> There's already some pretty apt stuff in his collection.


blimey


----------



## brogdale (Jun 18, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I'm surprised no-one has vandalised the Saatchi Gallery at Duke of York's HQ, Kings Road, London SW3 4RY yet. That would certainly be a brutal simplicity of thought.


 
I'm conscious that this will forever cast me as a philistine, but.....based upon my last visit, you'd be hard pressed to tell whether or not any vandalism had been undertaken.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I'm conscious that this will forever cast me as a philistine, but.....based upon my last visit, you'd be hard pressed to tell whether or not any vandalism had been undertaken.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)




----------



## Sue (Jun 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> *I'm conscious that this will forever cast me as a philistine*, but.....based upon my last visit, you'd be hard pressed to tell whether or not any vandalism had been undertaken.


 
Think that horse bolted a while ago...


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why is 'educated' important enough to include here?


 
Her mother was married to A.J. Ayer ffs.

The more I learn about her, the less I like her.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> The more I learn about her, the less I like her.


 
the feeling's mutual.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> the feeling's mutual.


 
Ha, I thought as much

Took you long enough though. You weren`t always so bashful Nige.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

I bet her friends seriously do call her "Nige."


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 18, 2013)

what are you wittering on about?

and who left the fucking back door open again?


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> what are you wittering on about?


 
My lips are sealed Nige.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I also notice that it was NL and children that were instructed invited to leave the family home "until the dust settled" rather than him.


 

Often the way sadly.  Even if victims have rights to the property in terms of occupation orders / ASBIs etc, they often leave because they either don't know about those rights or just can't bear to be in a property with so many memories.  And sometimes for safety it's better that they go so perp does not know the whereabouts.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 18, 2013)

Nigella Lawson has been tried in the court of Dwyer.  Her crimes included making telly he doesn't like and having a cunt for a dad.  The verdict?  Guilty.  Sentenced to public assault and humiliation at the hands of her partner, private assaults and humiliation yet to be determined.

Saatchi - well, he's a bit naughty sometimes but boys will  be boys.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Her mother was married to A.J. Ayer ffs.<snip>


 
Irrelevant.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 18, 2013)

No platform for Dwyer!


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Nigella Lawson has been tried in the court of Dwyer. Her crimes included making telly he doesn't like and having a cunt for a dad. The verdict? Guilty. <snip>


 
I suspect there's more to it than that - Dwyer also knows that Nigella Lawson wouldn't even give him the time of day.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Nigella Lawson has been tried in the court of Dwyer. Her crimes included making telly he doesn't like and having a cunt for a dad. The verdict? Guilty. Sentenced to public assault and humiliation at the hands of her partner, private assaults and humiliation yet to be determined.
> 
> Saatchi - well, he's a bit naughty sometimes but boys will be boys.


 
I`ve already sentenced Saatchi to death just for being himself.

As for Nigella, I'm sorry Zapp, but I just don't like her. I simply don't. I think she's a spoilt rich Tory thicko. That is my considered opinion on the matter Zapp.

Why do you like her btw? Did you like her before the assault, or was that what swung it for you?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Irrelevant.


 
But interesting.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> I suspect there's more to it than that - Dwyer also knows that Nigella Lawson wouldn't even give him the time of day.


 
Oh rly?

See above.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

In Lawson's defence her Guinness chocolate cake is totes amazeballs.


----------



## Mation (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> It certainly favours him and is in sharp contrast to what they aired on BBC News 24 earlier today which was very neutral.
> 
> Not saying you're wasting your time or anything but the BBC will turn around and say, "his words, not ours".


They will. But it's still good for them to hear, explicitly, that their presentation isn't neutral, because in the excitement of an involving news story, I'd bet that some individuals will genuinely think it is.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> In Lawson's defence her Guinness chocolate cake is totes amazeballs.


 
Stop _talking _like that.

That's what watching Nigella will do to you, totes.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> In Lawson's defence her Guinness chocolate cake is totes amazeballs.


 
Also irrelevant.  As is the vegetarian steak sandwich - delicious as it may be.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Oh rly?
> 
> See above.


 
Sweetie, it's not about whether she's anything like your type, if there is such a thing.  It's more to do with the blow to your ego of knowing that you wouldn't have a chance with her.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Sweetie, it's not about whether she's anything like your type, if there is such a thing. It's more to do with the blow to your ego of knowing that you wouldn't have a chance with her.


 
No no, you don`t understand.  Read it again.

Although I must say I`d have expected her to choose a more delicate username.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Stop _talking _like that.


 
What are you going to do if he doesn't, place a hand over his mouth, or grip his neck in public, hmm?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Sweetie, it's not about whether she's anything like your type, if there is such a thing. It's more to do with the blow to your ego of knowing that you wouldn't have a chance with her.


 
He's now pretending that Zapp Brannigan is NL, because he thinks that's amusing.

And of course he wouldn't have a chance with her. She's well-known for her loathing of men who look even *vaguely* like her dad.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What are you going to do if he doesn't, place a hand over his mouth, or grip his neck in public, hmm?


 
Last time I did that it took me a week to get the stains out.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's now pretending that Zapp Brannigan is NL, because he thinks that's amusing.


 
What are you going on about now you old loon?

I know who Zapp is.  He`s about as far away from Nige as you are.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Last time I did that it took me a week to get the stains out.


 
Of your trousers.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Of your trousers.


 
His.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I`ve already sentenced Saatchi to death just for being himself.


 
Fair enough, I thought he was a nasty bastard long before this story broke.



phildwyer said:


> As for Nigella, I'm sorry Zapp, but I just don't like her. I simply don't. I think she's a spoilt rich Tory thicko. That is my considered opinion on the matter Zapp.


 
Again, that's fair enough.  Tories are cunts, she comes from privilege and you don't have to like her chocolate tart.  What isn't fair enough is the first instinct being to dismantle the character of the victim, as if her dad and her black forest gateaux somehow make her fair game for a shoeing from someone in a supposed position of her trust?  It doesn't belong in a thread which, while specifically about this couple, is also about the wider issue of DV in general.  You want to talk about her politics, parentage and puddings, start a "Nigella - why I don't like her" thread, not here, it's completely irrelevant.

It hints at a particularly nasty character streak on your part - in fact it's not really a hint, you're more shouting it from the rooftops through a loudhailer.



phildwyer said:


> Why do you like her btw? Did you like her before the assault, or was that what swung it for you?


 

Ambivalent about her before, ambivalent now.  On her side as a victim of domestic abuse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Last time I did that it took me a week to get the stains out.


you useless cunt


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you useless cunt


 
We haven`t all had your years of practice Pickers.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No no, you don`t understand. Read it again.
> 
> Although I must say I`d have expected her to choose a more delicate username.


 


Member since 2007.  I've been playing the long game, foiled at the last.

PM me for truffle recipes.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Again, that's fair enough. Tories are cunts, she comes from privilege and you don't have to like her chocolate tart. What isn't fair enough is the first instinct being to dismantle the character of the victim, as if her dad and her black forest gateaux somehow make her fair game for a shoeing from someone in a supposed position of her trust? It doesn't belong in a thread which, while specifically about this couple, is also about the wider issue of DV in general. You want to talk about her politics, parentage and puddings, start a "Nigella - why I don't like her" thread, not here, it's completely irrelevant.


 
Thgis thread is not about "the wider issue of DV in general." If you want to read a thread on that, start one. This thread is about a specific incident involving two specific people. Two very horrible specific people to be specific.

You strike me as a bit of a hypocrite.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Thgis thread is not about "the wider issue of DV in general." If you want to read a thread on that, start one. This thread is about a specific incident involving two specific people. Two very horrible specific people to be specific.
> 
> You strike me as a bit of a hypocrite.


he'd be in your august company if he is


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You strike me as a bit of a hypocrite.


 
and you strike most on here as a bit of a knob but there you go....


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> and you strike most on here as a bit of a knob but there you go....


 
Everyone else here is making some effort to be constructive.  Except you.  Why would you come on a thread just to be disruptive?


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Everyone else here is making some effort to be constructive. Except you. Why would you come on a thread just to be disruptive?


 
I would ask you the same question ?


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Thgis thread is not about "the wider issue of DV in general." If you want to read a thread on that, start one. This thread is about a specific incident involving two specific people. Two very horrible specific people to be specific.
> 
> You strike me as a bit of a hypocrite.



This thread has some merit if the issues highlighted by this one very public couple bring DV further to the public consciousness.  This thread has no merit if it degenerates into a "she's a bitch" victim bashing, and general consensus seems to be that those trying to take it that way are in fact quite sad little people.

ETA not just this thread, wider reporting too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Everyone else here is making some effort to be constructive.  Except you.  Why would you come on a thread just to be disruptive?


your entire rationale for posting here is to be disruptive.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> I would ask you the same question ?


 
And I`d answer by pointing to the many substantive points I`ve made here.

Copuld you do the same?  No, because you haven`t said anything substantive.  I suggest you begin doing so.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

As well as yours.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> This thread has some merit if the issues highlighted by this one very public couple bring DV further to the public consciousness. This thread has no merit if it degenerates into a "she's a bitch" victim bashing.


 
Whoa, hang on a second, why are you using language like that?

I`d certainly never use language like that about a woman.  Who are you quoting?


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 18, 2013)

If, Phil.  If.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I`d certainly never use language like that about a woman. Who are you quoting?


You seem to be a tad hard of thinking (too much time and relatively cheap beer?).  The marks around "she's a bitch" were because he was talking hypothetically about attitudes and stances.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> You seem to be a tad hard of thinking (too much time and relatively cheap beer?). The marks around "she's a bitch" were because he was talking hypothetically about attitudes and stances.


 
Well a hot Bavarian afternoon is not a place to stay _entirely _sober all day is it?

But I firmly believe that Zapp was implying those words were mine.  I suspect that was the little Zapster`s plan.  I`m pretty sure Senor Zappado had something like that up his sleeve.  I`d wager that was high on old Zappy`s agenda.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Whoa, hang on a second, why are you using language like that?
> 
> I`d certainly never use language like that about a woman. Who are you quoting?


but you're quite happy to about men, calling people twats and so on. you haven't the critical faculties of a pissed platypus.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> but you're quite happy to about men.


 
Damn right bitch.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well a hot Bavarian afternoon is not a place to stay _entirely _sober all day is it?<snip>


 
Dwyer, you're forcing me to agree that Pickman's has a point.  If this goes on, I may need full decontamination.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 18, 2013)

thriller said:


> Meh. two very wealthy people having a minor disagreement. They'll resolve it. Intelligent enough to do so. If it were some council estate couple, then I'd worry.


 
A minor disagreement? Is that how you describe someone choking their wife in public?


----------



## cdg (Jun 18, 2013)

thriller said:


> If it were some council estate couple, then I'd worry.


 

What's the difference between them and a council estate couple?


----------



## cdg (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Dwyer, you're forcing me to agree that Pickman's has a point. If this goes on, I may need full decontamination.


 

Or a labatomy/firing squad.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

thriller said:


> Meh. two very wealthy people having a minor disagreement. They'll resolve it. Intelligent enough to do so. If it were some council estate couple, then I'd worry.


so posh domestick violence nothing to worry about, something on a council estate is. what about if they're not a council estate couple but in the private rented sector?


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Damn right bitch.


 
here's a fun game - everytime PD vomits forth his ill-informed, vapid trollbait, just quote it and say "cock off, phil, you colossal twatwizard, and when you get there, come back and cock right off all over again", go on try it - it's a game the whole family can play!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> here's a fun game - everytime PD vomits forth his ill-informed, vapid trollbait, just quote it and say "cock off, phil, you colossal twatwizard, and when you get there, come back and cock right off all over again", go on try it - it's a game the whole family can play!


hours of fun etc


----------



## snadge (Jun 18, 2013)

Haha it's the infamous Dwyer, long time no speak Philly, now do one will ya!


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> hours of fun etc


 
Hours? Years of fun, _years_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Hours? Years of fun, _years_.


i do hope not


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i do hope not


 
Well it's been a few years already. People have been telling dwyer to fuck off ever since I can remember.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Well it's been a few years already. People have been telling dwyer to fuck off ever since I can remember.


yeh it's true it's become one of people's introductions, have a hobnob tell phil to fuck off don't worry about dubversion he doesn't pester people for fivers any more etc


----------



## snadge (Jun 18, 2013)

didn't he report everyone that replied with 'fuck off dwyer' at one point?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

snadge said:


> didn't he report everyone that replied with 'fuck off dwyer' at one point?


let's give it another go and see


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well a hot Bavarian afternoon is not a place to stay _entirely _sober all day is it?
> 
> But I firmly believe that Zapp was implying those words were mine. I suspect that was the little Zapster`s plan. I`m pretty sure Senor Zappado had something like that up his sleeve. I`d wager that was high on old Zappy`s agenda.


 

I did no such thing.  The words were not yours, Philly Willy, old Dwyo, Captitano Mysogo, but it's pretty clear from your every contribution that it's not a million miles from your thoughts.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

cdg said:


> Or a labatomy<snip>


 
Maybe the heat's gone to my head, but how do you surgically remove a lab?


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 18, 2013)

Phil, will you please just fuck off this thread?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Maybe the heat's gone to my head, but how do you surgically remove a lab?


easily, if it's at the front of cdg's head


----------



## cdg (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Maybe the heat's gone to my head, but how do you surgically remove a lab?


 
Write, its game on motherfucker. Every speeling or grammatical error buy you is gonna be comically highlighted from now on.


----------



## cdg (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> easily, if it's at the front of cdg's head


 
That makes no sense.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

cdg said:


> Write its game on motherfucker. Every speeling or grammatical error buy you is gonna be comically highlighted from now on.


i'll just highlight the bits you get right


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

cdg said:


> That makes no sense.


the lobotomy is the removal of part of the front of the brain

so the labatomy would perhaps be removing a lab from the front of your brain, the front of your head

it's not so funny when you have to explain jokes to thick as shit twats.


----------



## cdg (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> it's not so funny when you have to explain jokes to thick as shit twats.


 
No it just wasn't funny at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

cdg said:


> No it just wasn't funny at all.


tell you what, show you've a sense of humour and maybe i'll take your view into consideration.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> here's a fun game - everytime PD vomits forth his ill-informed, vapid trollbait, just quote it and say "cock off, phil, you colossal twatwizard, and when you get there, come back and cock right off all over again", go on try it - it's a game the whole family can play!


 
We already do that. It's called "fuck off, dwyer".


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> We already do that. It's called "fuck off, dwyer".


 
job done.

'Fuck off and Dwyer'

F.O.A.D


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

cdg said:


> Write, its game on motherfucker. Every speeling or grammatical error buy you is gonna be comically highlighted from now on.


 
Fine by me, sweetie.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll just highlight the bits you get right


 
That won't take long.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> That won't take long.


yeh i thought it would save time


----------



## andysays (Jun 18, 2013)

Well, it's good to see that Dwyer has been suitably chastened by his punishment...


----------



## Frumious B. (Jun 18, 2013)

This thread is too long for me. What are the highlights pls?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> Well, it's good to see that Dwyer has been suitably chastened by his punishment...


 
He's trying harder to colour within the lines this time - he wasn't banned for just being an idiot.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 18, 2013)

cdg said:


> Every speeling or grammatical error buy you is gonna be comically highlighted from now on.


 
I don't reckon you'd spot them.


----------



## killer b (Jun 18, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> This thread is too long for me. What are the highlights pls?


 
there aren't any. it's a thread about a bloke hitting his wife. no highlights.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 18, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> This thread is too long for me. What are the highlights pls?


 
Saatchi is a cunt.
Whether Nigella is or isn't is not relevant to this fact.
Fuck off Dwyer.


----------



## cdg (Jun 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I don't reckon you'd spot them.


 
I wouldn't be lucking too be honest. I was just trying to be humorous.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

cdg said:


> I wouldn't be lucking too be honest. I was just trying to be humorous.


That's where you're going wrong


----------



## suki456 (Jun 18, 2013)

at the top of my landing page is says, Nigella Lawson attacked by....Pickman's model. 
I know shes very bourgeois but that's a bit low, I always had a soft spot for her myself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

suki456 said:


> at the top of my landing page is says, Nigella Lawson attacked by....Pickman's model.
> I know shes very bourgeois but that's a bit low, I always had a soft spot for her myself.


She put fucking *milk* in my tea  it's not a good week for nigella


----------



## suki456 (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> She put fucking *milk* in my tea  it's not a good week for nigella


off topic but.. who is Martin Corey?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

suki456 said:


> off topic but.. who is Martin Corey?


An internee from the six counties


----------



## Metal Malcolm (Jun 18, 2013)

Just seen the following on twitter, which is a really important point.

*Sunny Hundal* ‏@sunny_hundal9h​A domestic violence charity tells BBC #wato that calls to them quadrupled after pictures of assault on Nigella Lawson were published.

Regardless of your opinion of either party, surely this totally justifies the publication?  Anything which persuades more women to contact someone about their situation is a good thing.


----------



## cdg (Jun 18, 2013)

suki456 said:


> off topic but.. who is Martin Corey?


 
Alleged terrorist. Use Google.


----------



## suki456 (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> An internee from the six counties


 oh, ok Ill have to google him, or not google but the nongoogle equivalent.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 18, 2013)

Our helpline hasn't stopped ringing either, and we've had a lot more women than usual access our drop in service now I think about it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

Metal Malcolm said:


> Just seen the following on twitter, which is a really important point.
> 
> *Sunny Hundal* ‏@sunny_hundal9h​A domestic violence charity tells BBC #wato that calls to them quadrupled after pictures of assault on Nigella Lawson were published.
> 
> Regardless of your opinion of either party, surely this totally justifies the publication?  Anything which persuades more women to contact someone about their situation is a good thing.


I'd prefer it if calls halved as men saw how wrong dv is


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I'd prefer it if calls halved as men saw how wrong dv is


 

That would definitely be the preferable option.  Would love that our service just didn't have to exist really.  But it's encouraging if people are having more confidence to seek help and support, find out their options etc.


----------



## Sue (Jun 18, 2013)

Editor of the Evening Standard today (quoting the whole thing as it's quite short):

*Married to the multitude*

A marital problem is played out in a public restaurant and, much later, in a police station, but *who knows the truth of what goes on behind closed doors*. That has not stopped Twitter from certain views. Following menacing-looking newspaper photographs of Charles Saatchi clutching the throat of his wife, Nigella Lawson, everyone has pitched in. I know the couple reasonably well and have no idea what was really going on between them. *Yesterday, Saatchi said that a picture can create a false story*. Coincidentally, this is the visual theme of his Evening Standard column, which is a study of illusion.* Following the unhappy episode last week, the couple returned home, held a dinner party and apparently continued lovingly until the photographs were published.* Now the story has taken on its own momentum and *casts its ominous cloud over the couple’s relationship*. In case they need advice, a 24/7 babble of commentators are on hand. There are thousands of people trying to force their way into the marriage at the moment.

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...h-in-britains-place-in-the-world-8663036.html

So, no mention of Saatchi's admission of guilt by accepting a caution and it's not his fault if their relationship is in trouble -- it's ours. FFS.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> That would definitely be the preferable option.  Would love that our service just didn't have to exist really.  But it's encouraging if people are having more confidence to seek help and support, find out their options etc.


As long as dv hasn't risen as people see how very seriously the police take it with their cautions and that


----------



## Metal Malcolm (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I'd prefer it if calls halved as men saw how wrong dv is


 

Granted, but I think it's less likely that a persistently abusive man will change because of such an article than it is that an abused partner gets the courage to break free.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

Nominative determinism that Nigella hasn't exactly had the easiest love life (re long term relationships) and the common name for nigella is love-in-the-mist?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I'd prefer it if calls halved as men saw how wrong dv is


 
Absolutely, but human nature is very unlikely to change overnight.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Absolutely, but human nature is very unlikely to change overnight.


Doesn't have to be 'human nature' but just some people thinking things out


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> As long as dv hasn't risen as people see how very seriously the police take it with their cautions and that


 

Sadly their response doesn't surprise me much.  They have got much better but I still regularly hear horrendous practice (if practice is really the right word here) on an almost daily basis.

It's not much better in other services though tbh.  It's quite shocking how poor the level of understanding of DV is in organisations who will come across victims of it every day.


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2013)

Sue said:


> So, no mention of Saatchi's admission of guilt by accepting a caution and it's not his fault if their relationship is in trouble -- it's ours. FFS.


 

I wonder if they're all walking on egg shells because of the fear of litigation? Saatchi has some very powerful friends.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Doesn't have to be 'human nature' but just some people thinking things out


 
Part of the problem (not for Nigella Lawson, so excuse the digression) is that the change to benefit rules actually pressures people to move in together when they'd really be better off seeing a lot of each other but not living under the same roof.  This applies most the the under 25s, who, you've guessed it, are more prone to impulsive acts simply because they haven't quite got the knack of thinking things out yet.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> I wonder if they're all walking on egg shells because of the fear of litigation? Saatchi has some very powerful friends.


Plus the fact that Saatchi is one of the substandard's "star" columnists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Plus the fact that Saatchi is one of the substandard's "star" columnists.


Shurely 'shite'


----------



## Sue (Jun 18, 2013)

Firky said:


> I wonder if they're all walking on egg shells because of the fear of litigation? Saatchi has some very powerful friends.


 
Like Sarah Sands, editor of the ES for example. Given he's admitted assault, not sure how he could sue people for mentioning it. Saying that, her piece is very carefully worded (if the sentiments contained in it are shite).


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jun 18, 2013)

love Nigella....that husband sounds like a tosser.....


----------



## Badgers (Jun 18, 2013)

I feel out of touch as I know little or nothing about either of them. 

I know Nigella is a celebrity chef but I never watch those programmes. I know the Saatchi name but know nothing of the man himself 

They (both) might be considered a rich and high maintenance couple but that does not excuse his actions in this farce. Whatever happens legally to him I hope she gets away from him. If they want to stay together long term I hope he (at least) attends some anger management treatment.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 19, 2013)

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/domestic-violence-resources.311780/ - some DV resources and information.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 19, 2013)

Badgers said:


> I feel out of touch as I know little or nothing about either of them.
> 
> I know Nigella is a celebrity chef but I never watch those programmes. I know the Saatchi name but know nothing of the man himself
> 
> They (both) might be considered a rich and high maintenance couple but that does not excuse his actions in this farce. Whatever happens to legally to him I hope she gets away from him. If they want to stay together long term I hope he (at least) attends some anger management treatment.


 

Anger management is not appropriate for perpetrators because they are not angry.  They have self control as they are able to choose who they perpetrate violence to.  Anger management simply teaches them to hide their abusive behaviour better.  They are always in control and know what they are doing no matter what they might claim.  Perpetrators of domestic abuse are not your average angry person. 

People suffering psychotic or similar acute mental health episodes aside, obviously.

It is preferable they attend a specific programme set up for perpetrators of abuse; the Freedom Programme is a popular and well known one (although it does have some problems) and there is also the IDAP programme, though this has extensive waiting lists.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 19, 2013)

Thanks. 

I was being a bit vague and simple there.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Jun 19, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Sadly their response doesn't surprise me much. They have got much better but I still regularly hear horrendous practice (if practice is really the right word here) on an almost daily basis.
> 
> It's not much better in other services though tbh. It's quite shocking how poor the level of understanding of DV is in organisations who will come across victims of it every day.


 
I worked in schools, nurseries and children's services in an inner London LA for 14 years and never ONCE had training about DV despite seeing the effects of it very regularly for families I worked with  I hope I dealt well with families and didn't make matters worse

Obv I had safeguarding training about children but never about the parents experience


----------



## Santino (Jun 19, 2013)

Is there any legal problem with admitting an offence and then immediately going public to say that you didn't actually do the deed in question? Like contempt of court (except it hasn't gone to court) or lying to the police?


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 19, 2013)

don't know. but im pretty sure there's something in the bible about it, so he'll have that to answer for when he goes to hell... FOR KILLING JESUS!


----------



## existentialist (Jun 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Why is 'educated' important enough to include here? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but that leaps out at me and baffles me. Is the suggestion that even those who have options still sometimes  are unable to leave?



My take on this is that there tends to be a tendency to write DV off as a phenomenon affecting the "lower orders", and that having someone educated and articulate is remarkable in that it gives the lie to the idea that abused women, particularly ones who remain with their abusers are necessarily thick, complicit, or just stupid.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 19, 2013)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> The words were not yours


 
So you should not have quoted me as saying them.

I believe you owe me an apology.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 19, 2013)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh rly?
> 
> See above.



Strange, I've just been writing training notes about reaction formation as an ego defence


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 19, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Strange, I've just been writing training notes about reaction formation as an ego defence


 
What are your recommendations?


----------



## existentialist (Jun 19, 2013)

pissflaps said:
			
		

> here's a fun game - everytime PD vomits forth his ill-informed, vapid trollbait, just quote it and say "cock off, phil, you colossal twatwizard, and when you get there, come back and cock right off all over again", go on try it - it's a game the whole family can play!



It doesn't work: it fits with the game I think he is playing. I think the best response to him is probably a painstakingly reasonable one, but I won't pretend that I can manage that all of the time. Still, as a parody of the kind of unthinking attitudes towards DV that occur in society at large, phildwyer's responses have their uses...


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 19, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Still, as a parody of the kind of unthinking attitudes towards DV that occur in society at large, phildwyer's responses have their uses...


 
Hang on a second, when have I said anything about "DV?"


----------



## existentialist (Jun 19, 2013)

Metal Malcolm said:
			
		

> Just seen the following on twitter, which is a really important point.
> 
> Sunny Hundal ‏@sunny_hundal9h
> A domestic violence charity tells BBC #wato that calls to them quadrupled after pictures of assault on Nigella Lawson were published.
> ...



Well, it's an ill wind and all that, but it doesn't make anything right.


----------



## pissflaps (Jun 19, 2013)

existentialist said:


> It doesn't work: it fits with the game I think he is playing. I think the best response to him is probably a painstakingly reasonable one, but I won't pretend that I can manage that all of the time. Still, as a parody of the kind of unthinking attitudes towards DV that occur in society at large, phildwyer's responses have their uses...


 
good point well made.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 19, 2013)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What are your recommendations?



Self-awareness.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 19, 2013)

existentialist said:


> My take on this is that there tends to be a tendency to write DV off as a phenomenon affecting the "lower orders", and that having someone educated and articulate is remarkable in that it gives the lie to the idea that abused women, particularly ones who remain with their abusers are necessarily thick, complicit, or just stupid.


The woman who was talking yesterday was also using it as a means of contrasting the person she was as far as the outside world was concerned (professional, highly competent, in control of her life, etc) and the person she was within the context of her marriage.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 19, 2013)

trashpony said:


> The woman who was talking yesterday was also using it as a means of contrasting the person she was as far as the outside world was concerned <snip> and the person she was within the context of her marriage.


 
Which probably made it all the more difficult for her to mention what was going on, let alone to ask for any help.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> In the Mirror piece you quoted.


 
fucking hell your on top form this week

its like Poirot strolling through Brixton randomly solving conundrums


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 19, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> So you should not have quoted me as saying them.


 
I didn't quote you as saying them.



phildwyer said:


> I believe you owe me an apology.


 
I owe you nothing.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

You have the best username ever and im jealous i never thought of it


----------



## Balbi (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> You have the best username ever and im jealous i never thought of it


 

That makes you Kif?


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

whos kif ?


are these real people I dont know about ?


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 19, 2013)

<--------- My avatar - that's Zapp Brannigan.

Kif is his lieutenant/servant.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 19, 2013)




----------



## andysays (Jun 19, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Self-awareness.


 
Yeah, like *that's* going to happen...


----------



## existentialist (Jun 19, 2013)

andysays said:


> Yeah, like *that's* going to happen...


Why do you think I advised it?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> No it's not.


 
We sorted that. Time ago.

Honest to god, sugar plum, do at least _try_ to keep up.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> We sorted that. Time ago.
> 
> Honest to god, sugar plum, do at least _try_ to keep up.


 
Sugar plum


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Sugar plum


 
If they're not sugar plum's, they're sweet pea's. And if they're not sweet peas they're baby's. Welcome to my sugar candy world


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jun 20, 2013)

Wilf said:


> The guardian story describes him as a 'columnist' for the Evening Standard which, living outside London, I didn't know (presumably an art column?). I'm sure they'll take a stand and sack him now that he's accepted a caution for domestic violence.


 
Saatchi is a major player in the modern art world. The old bully has been collecting art for years and the advertising and pr hero has done a lot to convince people that Hirsts, Emins et al are significant and valuable, including building galleries for his own collection / writing the odd book / newspaper column /marrying and divorcing the sort of woman that everyone covets / persuading his mates to buy his stuff by the yard and patronise his proteges, so that everybody's investments profit.

It is too much to hope that he will become deeply unpopular, lose all credibility, and that his faithful followers investers will be forced to realise that they have bought a load of old cack thanks to the advertising genius.

Will the modern art world collapse?


----------



## coley (Jun 20, 2013)

UrbaneFox said:


> Saatchi is a major player in the modern art world. The old bully has been collecting art for years and the advertising and pr hero has done a lot to convince people that Hirsts, Emins et al are significant and valuable, including building galleries for his own collection / writing the odd book / newspaper column /marrying and divorcing the sort of woman that everyone covets /  persuading his mates to buy his stuff by the yard and patronise his proteges, so that everybody's investments profit.
> 
> It is too much to hope that he will become deeply unpopular, lose all credibility and loads of faithful followers investers will be forced to realise that they have bought a load of old cack thanks to the advertising genius.
> 
> Will the modern art world collapse?



CONAC, I would love the above scenario to come true, with the consequent lines of luvvies queuing up outside the job centres


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jun 20, 2013)

What does CONAC mean?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 20, 2013)

UrbaneFox said:


> What does CONAC mean?


 end of the banquet?


----------



## catinthehat (Jun 20, 2013)

City of Norwich Athletic Club


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jun 20, 2013)

Thank you.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 7, 2013)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...nnounces-he-is-to-divorce-Nigella-Lawson.html



> "I am sorry to announce that Nigella Lawson and I are getting divorced.
> "I feel that I have clearly been a disappointment to Nigella during the last year or so, and I am disappointed that she was advised to make no public comment to explain that I abhor violence of any kind against women, and have never abused her physically in any way."
> Mr Saatchi is said by the paper not to have spoken to his wife since the pictures were published.
> The advertising tycoon said: "This is heartbreaking for both of us as our love was very deep, but in the last year we have become estranged and drifted apart... The row photographed at Scott’s restaurant could equally have been Nigella grasping my neck to hold my attention – as indeed she has done in the past."


 
Fucking scumbag


----------



## cesare (Jul 7, 2013)

Balbi said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...nnounces-he-is-to-divorce-Nigella-Lawson.html
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking scumbag


Button said that on the Andrew Marr show, there was some talk that his announcement was the first she'd heard of it


----------



## Balbi (Jul 7, 2013)

Desperate to remain "IN CONTROL" of it all.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2013)

What a fucking scumbag. Oh _she_ has abused me and it is her fault for not saying that I never hurt her. Vile controlling cunt


----------



## colacubes (Jul 7, 2013)

Not enough  in the world.  Vile man


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jul 7, 2013)

I am deeply pleased to see him make such a blatantly stupid move.  Seriously, for a guy who's meant to be a master of spin and media manipulation, this is the best he could do?

He's already accepted a charge for domestic violence, and now he's trying to portray himself as a victim.  This will cost him a fucking mint, and leave him with pariah status for the rest of his miserable existence.


----------



## 8den (Jul 7, 2013)

Unless he's had a pre nup which surely must he has.

Does anyone think his tory cunt and advertising cunt, and modern art cunt mates will give a crap?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2013)

Yes, he does not come out of this smelling of roses.

I wonder if she will speak publically about this at some point.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 7, 2013)

whiney, snivelling little turd of man. i hope stands on an upturned plug.


----------



## andysays (Jul 7, 2013)

Balbi said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...nnounces-he-is-to-divorce-Nigella-Lawson.html
> 
> Fucking scumbag


 
Does anyone with a better understanding of the divorce laws than I have any suggestions about the implications of the fact that it's apparently _him_ instigating divorce proceedings?


----------



## Balbi (Jul 7, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Yes, he does not come out of this smelling of roses.
> 
> I wonder if she will speak publically about this at some point.


 

Nice big interview and a double page spread in the Sunday's in a few months time, patron of a DV charity and a new series on the telly.

If the terms of the divorce don't gag her. Like the 'unreasonable behaviour' which ended Saatchi's first marriage.


----------



## 8den (Jul 7, 2013)

Just remembered this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2093053.stm

Twat.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 7, 2013)

8den said:


> Just reminded this.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2093053.stm
> 
> Twat.


So he used to keep a human head made out of blood in his kitchen freezer. Well that's normal.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> whiney, snivelling little turd of man. i hope stands on an upturned plug.


 

may his feet remain forever unshod and pieces of lego impede his path for all of his days


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jul 7, 2013)

He's totally outed himself as an utter cunt now hasn't he? And he probably doesn't even realise it! Ha!


----------



## 8den (Jul 7, 2013)

emanymton said:


> So he used to keep a human head made out of blood in his kitchen freezer. Well that's normal.


 
No he spent 13k on a human head made of blood, kept it in his freezer, and it melted. 

I'd fucking hate to be his cleaner.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 7, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> I am deeply pleased to see him make such a blatantly stupid move. Seriously, for a guy who's meant to be a master of spin and media manipulation, this is the best he could do?
> 
> He's already accepted a charge for domestic violence, and now he's trying to portray himself as a victim. This will cost him a fucking mint, and leave him with pariah status for the rest of his miserable existence.


It does seem an incredibly stupid move.

I guess he just doesn't give a shit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2013)

8den said:


> *No he spent 13k on a human head made of blood, kept it in his freezer, and it melted. *
> 
> I'd fucking hate to be his cleaner.


 
a fool and his money


----------



## yardbird (Jul 7, 2013)

This has been handled really badly.
See what happens when Max Clifford isn't available?


----------



## yardbird (Jul 7, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> a fool and his money


 
It is possible that the melt was all part of the ongoing artistic experience and the fridge is worth 10K


----------



## RedDragon (Jul 7, 2013)

He probably hasn't a clue how we now see him - I couldn't even be arsed to glance at his last article for the Standard.

Taxi to the cleaners.


----------



## Sue (Jul 7, 2013)

So he tells his wife if ten years he's divorcing her on the front page of the Mail on Sunday. A master of spin and PR indeed.

'Ms Lawson is not aware of the divorce ultimatum being issued by her husband today and will be devastated by his claim that she is somehow to blame for failing to speak out in his defence.'
'Saatchi reveals that on the day the pictures were published, he was ordered by Ms Lawson’s PR advisor Mark Hutchinson to apologise for the assault and admit he was ‘ashamed’. He flew off the handle and asked his wife: ‘Are you crazy, you know that’s not the truth.’
Nigella said: ‘I think we have no choice.’ The couple then had a furious row in which he told her to ‘pack her bags and go’.'
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/...a-Lawson-exclusive-statement-Mail-Sunday.html


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2013)

Balbi said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...nnounces-he-is-to-divorce-Nigella-Lawson.html
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking scumbag


 
He's not even a scumbag or the contents of a scumbag.

A cesspit or the contents thereof, maybe.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> I am deeply pleased to see him make such a blatantly stupid move. Seriously, for a guy who's meant to be a master of spin and media manipulation, this is the best he could do?
> 
> He's already accepted a charge for domestic violence, and now he's trying to portray himself as a victim. This will cost him a fucking mint, and leave him with pariah status for the rest of his miserable existence.


 
Like I said upthread, It was his brother that was best at the glad-handing noddy/winky stuff. He was more of a tactics man, so I'm not really surprised to see him drop a massive pile of pony onto his own brogues.


----------



## susie12 (Jul 7, 2013)

Well who knew?  It's all her fault!  What a controlling and really stupid man he is.


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jul 7, 2013)

andysays said:


> Does anyone with a better understanding of the divorce laws than I have any suggestions about the implications of the fact that it's apparently _him_ instigating divorce proceedings?


 

It won't make any difference.  The financial settlement in a divorce is not dependent on one party taking "the blame".

His having announced that he's divorcing her is quite possibly a means of maintaining control, or being perceived as the one in control.  What the financial settlement might be is entirely dependent on whether there was a pre-nup or not.  Given his mind-boggling wealth, I'd be shocked and stunned if there wasn't.  Luckily for Nigella, she has her own substantial wealth, so I'd be surprised if there was going to be much haggling taking place in the background but I suppose it all depends on how angry and vengeful she might be feeling.  I suspect she may have a great deal more dignity than that, but you never know.....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> whiney, snivelling little turd of man. i hope stands on an upturned plug.


 
I'd prefer him to tread on a piece of Lego, then stumble around the room treading on the rest of the pieces from the box. I'd pay good money to see that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> may his feet remain forever unshod and pieces of lego impede his path for all of his days


 
Plus the occasional sticklebrick, the bane of my childhood.


----------



## 8den (Jul 7, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> a fool and his money


 

13k for the head, thats fucking nothing for him.


----------



## Sue (Jul 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like I said upthread, It was his brother that was best at the glad-handing noddy/winky stuff. He was more of a tactics man, so I'm not really surprised to see him drop a massive pile of pony onto his own brogues.


He was the tactics man..?


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 7, 2013)

May his every shit from now on be hedgehog shaped......


----------



## toggle (Jul 7, 2013)

Bitter&Twisted said:


> It won't make any difference. The financial settlement in a divorce is not dependent on one party taking "the blame".
> 
> His having announced that he's divorcing her is quite possibly a means of maintaining control, or being perceived as the one in control. What the financial settlement might be is entirely dependent on whether there was a pre-nup or not. Given his mind-boggling wealth, I'd be shocked and stunned if there wasn't. Luckily for Nigella, she has her own substantial wealth, so I'd be surprised if there was going to be much haggling taking place in the background but I suppose it all depends on how angry and vengeful she might be feeling. I suspect she may have a great deal more dignity than that, but you never know.....


 
if they are divorcing in the UK, then pre nups aren't legally binding. a court can aggree with them, or ignore them, depending on circumstances.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2013)

pinkmonkey said:


> He's totally outed himself as an utter cunt now hasn't he? And he probably doesn't even realise it! Ha!


 
Is that because of the self-serving nature of the statement that he released, or because he released it in the _Mail_?


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jul 7, 2013)

Erm, OK then.  I thought there had been a legal precedent set quite recently but not being of the moneyed sort myself alas I obviously didn't give it my full attention.

I'm quite enjoying the thought of a costly battle through the courts for him but I fear it is not to be.


----------



## andysays (Jul 7, 2013)

Bitter&Twisted said:


> It won't make any difference. The financial settlement in a divorce is not dependent on one party taking "the blame".
> 
> His having announced that he's divorcing her is quite possibly a means of maintaining control, or being perceived as the one in control. What the financial settlement might be is entirely dependent on whether there was a pre-nup or not. Given his mind-boggling wealth, I'd be shocked and stunned if there wasn't. Luckily for Nigella, she has her own substantial wealth, so I'd be surprised if there was going to be much haggling taking place in the background but I suppose it all depends on how angry and vengeful she might be feeling. I suspect she may have a great deal more dignity than that, but you never know.....


 
I was under the (admittedly v. vague) impression that, unless citing irreconcilable differences, which first requires some sort of declared/legal separation, the person instigating the divorce has to demonstrate some fault (adultery, desertion, cruelty, etc) from the other partner.

If I'm right (and I may be totally wrong), it's difficult to see what grounds Saatchi would have.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2013)

Sue said:


> He was the tactics man..?


 
In terms of ad campaigns, he was pretty sussed in knowing what media would work best for a particular product, hence the concentration on billboards with the "Labour's not working" ads, with only a smallish tv ad campaign to back them.

It's fairly obvious that when it comes to private life, his sense of tactics is non-existent, though!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> May his every shit from now on be hedgehog shaped......


 
And come out head first.


----------



## RedDragon (Jul 7, 2013)

Bitter&Twisted said:


> Erm, OK then. I thought there had been a legal precedent set quite recently but not being of the moneyed sort myself alas I obviously didn't give it my full attention.


It seem it's up to the judge.

Supreme court test case finds prenuptial agreement between German heiress and former husband to be legally binding
Guardian


----------



## Corax (Jul 7, 2013)

*Hadley Freeman* @HadleyFreeman
Ooh, Charles Saatchi is back on the market! Form an orderly queue, ladies!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> In terms of ad campaigns, he was pretty sussed in knowing what media would work best for a particular product, hence the concentration on billboards with the "Labour's not working" ads, with only a smallish tv ad campaign to back them.
> 
> It's fairly obvious that when it comes to private life, his sense of tactics is non-existent, though!


 
do you recall the ad campaign where they stripped blairs eyes away and replaced them with a set of demon eyes, above the slogan 'New Labour, New danger?'


That famous grin, I saw him the other day on tv and he got old. He still does the grin but now its like a rictus grimace struggling from behind a face aged beyond his years. Maybe guilt has aged him so. He certainly doesn't look like a man of his age. He's starting to look like the bloke from the end of 'The Last Crusade' who chooses the wrong cup


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jul 7, 2013)

Sue said:


> He was the tactics man..?


 

Incredible, isn't it.  He was meant to be the smart one for planning, his brother the charm merchant.  Winning tactics he's using here.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 7, 2013)

I find him comparable to a Damien Hurst sculpture.
Both shit.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jul 7, 2013)

agricola said:


> Is that because of the self-serving nature of the statement that he released, or because he released it in the _Mail_?


 

The former.  HTH.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jul 7, 2013)

agricola said:


> Is that because of the self-serving nature of the statement that he released, or because he released it in the _Mail_?


 
I thought it was in the Torygraph? But, yeah, the statement.


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And come out head first.


 
I think you'll find that in the case of a hedgehog, arse-first (blunt end, and against the lie of the quills) is more... interesting.



After you with the empirical hypothesis-testing.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 7, 2013)

Corax said:


> *Hadley Freeman* @HadleyFreeman
> Ooh, Charles Saatchi is back on the market! *Form an orderly queue, ladies!*


 

To hit him in the face very hard?


----------



## Corax (Jul 7, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> To hit him in the face very hard?


 
In a "playful manner"...


----------



## Edie (Jul 7, 2013)

Poor Nigella


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 7, 2013)

I wonder if Nigella needs a job as a cook. I will pay minimum wage and do the food shopping myself, as she has no idea of value for money when buying.


----------



## friedaweed (Jul 7, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I wonder if Nigella needs a job as a cook. I will pay minimum wage and do the food shopping myself, as she has no idea of value for money when buying.


I've been calling her agent offering her my attic room and full access to my 'hob' since I saw the foul beasts handy work I'd like to cut of his sach and serve it up to her for our first romantic meal.


----------



## thriller (Jul 7, 2013)

i wonder how much she will bag from a settlement?


----------



## andysays (Jul 7, 2013)

thriller said:


> i wonder how much she will bag from a settlement?


 
Are we going down this road again?


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2013)

andysays said:


> Are we going down this road again?


 
So long as it's enough to hurt him, no need.


----------



## Poot (Jul 7, 2013)

thriller said:


> i wonder how much she will bag from a settlement?


I don't expect money is a problem here. Do you?


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 7, 2013)

thriller said:


> i wonder how much she will bag from a settlement?


 
I doubt she gives a shit about the money.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I doubt she gives a shit about the money.


As a bit of a media creature herself I do expect her to "state her case" at some point.
Perhaps she will write a book about it.
Stranger things have happened.


----------



## shygirl (Jul 7, 2013)

All the stuff about them having made up once they were indoors is indicative, imo, that the woman is scared of the man.  Once she left, there was no attempt to contact him or return home.  He's a fucking sociopath, imagine living with that.  He's punishing her again now for not defending his (indefensible) actions, by publicly stating his intention to divorce her without her prior knowledge.  I wish she'd beat him to it, cos HE deserved it.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 7, 2013)

weltweit said:


> As a bit of a media creature herself I do expect her to "state her case" at some point.
> Perhaps she will write a book about it.
> Stranger things have happened.


 
She's a very private person apparently so I doubt she would write a tell-all book. I think she just wants to be left alone.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> She's a very private person apparently so I doubt she would write a tell-all book. I think she just wants to be left alone.


Oh ok, but I imagine she might still be pressured a bit to put the case for DV victims.


----------



## andysays (Jul 31, 2013)

Nigella Lawson and Charles Saatchi divorce in 70 seconds​ 
Nigella Lawson was granted a “quickie” divorce in just 70 seconds at London’s High Court today to end her marriage to Charles Saatchi.
The TV cook, 53, won a decree nisi from her 70-year-old husband Charles Saatchi on the grounds of his unreasonable behaviour.
The couple split after he was pictured with his hand round her throat during a row last month.
Ms Lawson’s petition appeared 12th on the list of 20 undefended cases heard by district judge Anne Aitken. She ruled that the chef’s marriage had irretrievably broken down and Ms Lawson finds it intolerable to live with Mr Saatchi, neither of whom were present.


----------



## salem (Jul 31, 2013)

Good news for her. But it looks like she was the one who put forward the request 

Does that go against his statement that he would be requesting the divorce?


----------



## Sue (Jul 31, 2013)

andysays said:


> Nigella Lawson and Charles Saatchi divorce in 70 seconds​
> Nigella Lawson was granted a “quickie” divorce in just 70 seconds at London’s High Court today to end her marriage to Charles Saatchi.
> The TV cook, 53, won a decree nisi from her 70-year-old husband Charles Saatchi on the grounds of his unreasonable behaviour.
> The couple split after he was pictured with his hand round her throat during a row last month.
> Ms Lawson’s petition appeared 12th on the list of 20 undefended cases heard by district judge Anne Aitken. She ruled that the chef’s marriage had irretrievably broken down and Ms Lawson finds it intolerable to live with Mr Saatchi, neither of whom were present.


 
That was quick. Sign of today's broken society or something...

Seriously though thought even if these things weren't contested, they took longer than a few weeks?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2013)

andysays said:


> Nigella Lawson and Charles Saatchi divorce in 70 seconds​
> Nigella Lawson was granted a “quickie” divorce in just 70 seconds at London’s High Court today to end her marriage to Charles Saatchi.
> The TV cook, 53, won a decree nisi from her 70-year-old husband Charles Saatchi on the grounds of his unreasonable behaviour.
> The couple split after he was pictured with his hand round her throat during a row last month.
> Ms Lawson’s petition appeared 12th on the list of 20 undefended cases heard by district judge Anne Aitken. She ruled that the chef’s marriage had irretrievably broken down and Ms Lawson finds it intolerable to live with Mr Saatchi, neither of whom were present.


i wish judges would exert themselves as we never hear about a new speed record for a divorce. do our judges hold the record for the fastest divorce or is that proud title kept by judges in reno, nevada?


----------



## andysays (Jul 31, 2013)

salem said:


> Good news for her. But it looks like she was the one who put forward the request
> 
> Does that go against his statement that he would be requesting the divorce?


 
Yes, it does, and yes, it does appear to.


----------



## andysays (Jul 31, 2013)

Sue said:


> That was quick. Sign of today's broken society or something...
> 
> Seriously though thought even if these things weren't contested, they took longer than a few weeks?


 
I thought so too. I suspect if you and I were getting a divorce, as it were, it might well take slightly longer...


----------



## Sue (Jul 31, 2013)

andysays said:


> I thought so too. I suspect if you and I were getting a divorce, as it were, it might well take slightly longer...


 
Andy, we hardly know each other and we're already talking about divorce...?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jul 31, 2013)

Sue said:


> That was quick. Sign of today's broken society or something...
> 
> Seriously though thought even if these things weren't contested, they took longer than a few weeks?


 


andysays said:


> I thought so too. I suspect if you and I were getting a divorce, as it were, it might well take slightly longer...


 

Uncontested = no discussion of money/assets, _I think. _That's what takes the time.


----------



## laptop (Jul 31, 2013)

Sue said:


> Seriously though thought even if these things weren't contested, they took longer than a few weeks?


 
Erm... is that the delay from decree nisi to decree absolute?


----------



## Manter (Jul 31, 2013)

friend has just had an uncontested divorce petition turned down by a judge- on the grounds the behaviour wasn't unreasonable enough and he had to uphold the sanctity of marriage. I didn't know they were even allowed to do that- it's cost her another £500 to resubmit!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jul 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> friend has just had an uncontested divorce petition turned down by a judge- on the grounds the behaviour wasn't unreasonable enough and he had to uphold the sanctity of marriage. I didn't know they were even allowed to do that- it's cost her another £500 to resubmit!


 

Aaaaaaaaand what was the behaviour?


----------



## Sue (Jul 31, 2013)

laptop said:


> Erm... is that the delay from decree nisi to decree absolute?


 
Could be. Still, thought even getting the first bit took longer than a few weeks but then can't say I know anything about it really. (This is the internet after all...)


----------



## Manter (Jul 31, 2013)

5t3IIa said:


> Uncontested = no discussion of money/assets, _I think. _That's what takes the time.


apparently uncontested means money has already been agreed in principle and neither party object to the divorce.  You can contest a divorce with no assets, or not contest a divorce with lots of crap to unscramble


----------



## Manter (Jul 31, 2013)

5t3IIa said:


> Aaaaaaaaand what was the behaviour?


no sex for 9 years, despite three lots of couples counselling: controlling behaviour including hiding money and holding assets in accounts etc she didn't have access to


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jul 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> no sex for 9 years, despite three lots of couples counselling: controlling behaviour including hiding money and holding assets in accounts etc she didn't have access to


 

Financial and emotional abuse. Fucking judges


----------



## andysays (Jul 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> no sex for 9 years, despite three lots of couples counselling: controlling behaviour including hiding money and holding assets in accounts etc she didn't have access to


 
Maybe the divorce judge considers all that normal behaviour within a marriage


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> no sex for 9 years, despite three lots of couples counselling: controlling behaviour including hiding money and holding assets in accounts etc she didn't have access to


 
Why didn't she just go down the irretrievably lost route?  That's seems to be a catch all, or was allocation of blame important to her?


----------



## Manter (Jul 31, 2013)

andysays said:


> Maybe the divorce judge considers all that normal behaviour within a marriage


yeah, all we can conclude is the petition came up against some old duffer who had a 'what do you mean, that's unreasonable behaviour?' moment.

Even her lawyer said it had never happened to her in 20 years of practice


----------



## Manter (Jul 31, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Why didn't she just go down the irretrievably lost route? That's seems to be a catch all, or was allocation of blame important to her?


google says (well gov.uk says)
*2. Grounds for divorce*

You must show there are good reasons for ending your marriage. You can give 5 grounds for a divorce.
*Adultery*

Your husband or wife had sex with someone else of the opposite sex, and you can no longer bear to live with them.
You can’t give adultery as a reason if you lived with your husband or wife for 6 months after you found out about it.
*Unreasonable behaviour*

Your husband or wife behaved so badly that you can no longer bear to live with them.
This could include:

physical violence
verbal abuse, eg insults or threats
drunkenness or drug-taking
refusing to pay for housekeeping
*Desertion*

Your husband or wife has left you:

without your agreement
without a good reason
to end your relationship
for more than 2 years in the past 2½ years
You can still claim desertion if you have lived together for up to a total of 6 months in this period.
*You have lived apart for more than 2 years*

You can get a divorce if you’ve lived apart for more than 2 years and both agree to the divorce.
Your husband or wife must agree in writing.
*You have lived apart for more than 5 years*

Living apart for more than 5 years is usually enough to get a divorce, even if your husband or wife disagrees with the divorce.


----------



## Manter (Jul 31, 2013)

interestingly, looking at that, a gay affair would be unreasonable behaviour not adultery.  Which is odd...


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 31, 2013)

The law hasn't caught up with the times on that one.


----------



## Schmetterling (Jul 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> yeah, all we can conclude is the petition came up against some old duffer who had a 'what do you mean, that's unreasonable behaviour?' moment.
> 
> Even her lawyer said it had never happened to her in 20 years of practice


 
Bastard!  Any way to complain?

slightly OT: My aunt died recently and we got hold of her 1968 divorce papers - adultery on her behalf.  What galled us was that the other party was not called 'other party' or termed as 'the other man' but as 'a/the Turk'!


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jul 31, 2013)

Sue said:


> That was quick. Sign of today's broken society or something...
> 
> Seriously though thought even if these things weren't contested, they took longer than a few weeks?


 
If I were the judge, I'd have granted the divorce as quickly as possible in case someone changed their mind.  That marriage looked like a murder waiting to happen.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 31, 2013)

Manter said:


> friend has just had an uncontested divorce petition turned down by a judge- on the grounds the behaviour wasn't unreasonable enough and he had to uphold the sanctity of marriage. I didn't know they were even allowed to do that- it's cost her another £500 to resubmit!


I always thought that the registrar takes the view that if it as broken down for one partner then it as broken down for both


----------



## Manter (Jul 31, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> I always thought that the registrar takes the view that if it as broken down for one partner then it as broken down for both


it is really odd- and he wasn't contesting either.  They have done this thing where she resubmitted with lots of gory details added, and they jump the queue (but not the fee)- but he phoned her in a fury at some of the stuff she had written on the resubmission.  The orig petition was carefully phrased (though did include details like 'have not achieved sexual relations in 9 years') to try and avoid them hating each other- they were trying to keep things amicable.  But the system seems to be set up to require it to descend into a slanging match


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2014)

Those arty types, eh?


> Jane Kelly, Art collector throttling a cook (2014).
> Courtesy the artist, Saatchi Art.
> 
> The controversy that collector Charles Saatchi would rather forget has been immortalized as art. Saatchi Art, the Los Angeles–based online art store with ties to hisLondon-based gallery, is currently offering no fewer than seven artists’ renderings of theinfamous 2013 incident in which Saatchi choked his now ex-wife, celebrity chef Nigella Lawson, on the terrace at the Mayfair fish restaurant Scott’s.
> ...


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2014)

And...








> *Charles Saatchi sees nothing wrong with selling paintings of himself man-handling his now-ex-wife Nigella Lawson*
> 
> Charles Saatchi is one of the most famous, highly-compensated art dealers in the world, but last year, the world discovered a much darker side when pictures surfaced of Saatchi appearing to choke his wife, celebrity chef Nigella Lawson, at a restaurant.
> 
> ...


----------



## weepiper (Jul 1, 2014)

> *Charles Saatchi sees nothing wrong with selling paintings of himself man-handling his now-ex-wife Nigella Lawson*



That's because he's a cunt.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Jul 1, 2014)

It was not 'man-handling', it was an assault.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 1, 2014)

and now he'll take a cut from flogging artists depictions of the assault. 0% shame.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Jul 1, 2014)

The gallery's defence that it does not censor anything which is not pornographic or racist is interesting. I think domestic abuse is a topic which can be addressed, challenged and explored in art but this particualr gallery is wilfully ignoring the power dynamics of an abusive relationship in which the abser typically manipulates and exploits an advantage of power or strength. This is again what the repugnant shit Saatchi is doing and what the gallery is supporting him, and is complicit in.


----------



## friedaweed (Jul 1, 2014)

The art pig should take a cut all right....



Spoiler: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_u6vTKeWV8ic/THbKPntz95I/AAAAAAAAC54/oeJbbSNHimc/s1600/IMG_4624.jpg











Editor: this is a photo of a pig being killed. Not sure what it's doing here.


----------



## IC3D (Jul 1, 2014)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> The gallery's defence that it does not censor anything which is not pornographic or racist is interesting. I think domestic abuse is a topic which can be addressed, challenged and explored in art but this particualr gallery is wilfully ignoring the power dynamics of an abusive relationship in which the abser typically manipulates and exploits an advantage of power or strength. This is again what the repugnant shit Saatchi is doing and what the gallery is supporting him, and is complicit in.


She's Nigella fucking Lawson a millionaire in her own right who's I'm sure moved the fuck on. I doubt there's much power dynamic going on any more. You want to dis-empower a successful woman then go for it but she's doing fine I'm sure.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jul 1, 2014)

Because if you are rich domestic abuse doesn't affect you???


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 1, 2014)

Lovely to see DV taken as seriously as it should be....


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 1, 2014)

IC3D said:


> She's Nigella fucking Lawson a millionaire in her own right who's I'm sure moved the fuck on. I doubt there's much power dynamic going on any more. You want to dis-empower a successful woman then go for it but she's doing fine I'm sure.



I'm not sure what her wealth has to do with the fact she's suffered from domestic violence.


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2014)

i think artists upload their art to sell via the saatchi art website (like ebay or amazon marketplace i guess) rather than them being chosen to be shown. He wont make any money off them 'cause they wont get sold - they were blatantly put there to troll the site rather than being actual pieces of art.

The first time they will have become aware of the paintings will have been when they were asked to comment for the article, as the software that scans for porn wont have picked them up. Bet there's loads of well dodgy stuff on there if you choose to go looking...


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2014)

looking for other controversial pieces I found this by the same artist as in editor's original post. so challenging. I think she might be doing her art GCSE atm


----------



## Manter (Jul 1, 2014)

They really are bloody awful paintings. killer b the gcse comment is spot on


----------



## toggle (Jul 1, 2014)

Boris Sprinkler said:


> Because if you are rich domestic abuse doesn't affect you???



apparently not

While she will not have the financial problems that many women escaping abusive relationships suffer, she has still been through the same trauma, character assasination and downplaying of his behavior that gets thrown at many abuse victims has and still is being thrown at her across the national press, not just among people she knows. including apparently the assumption that physical separation makes it all fine again


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 1, 2014)

I'm glad her US ban was lifted - must be one of the most harebrained decisions of the year to ban her....and i hope she resumes her amazing success and Saatchi's smear campaign falls further flat in his face. His new bird Trinny witch can do one too, trout-faced toff.....


----------



## toggle (Jul 1, 2014)

Cheesypoof said:


> I'm glad her US ban was lifted - must be one of the most harebrained decisions of the year to ban her....and i hope she resumes her amazing success and Saatchi's smear campaign falls further flat in his face. His new bird Trinny witch can do one too, trout-faced toff.....


i don't see the benefit in atacking the new gf, if he follows to form, she will be getting enough of that shit from him.


----------



## salem (Jul 1, 2014)

I don't like him and I'm not sure how this website works but if it's an open market place then I think it's a difficult position for him and removing it is only going to have people calling him out for trying to cover it up. I suppose he could donate any commission to charity or something but I think it'd be a fairly empty gesture.



purenarcotic said:


> Lovely to see DV taken as seriously as it should be....








And what about this?

It's an event which caused debate and outrage and bought domestic violence to the centre of national discussion, it's not surprising that artists are wanting to comment on it (even if in a trolling sense). I don't think that's such a bad thing.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 1, 2014)

see the underlined bit?
makes all the difference, intent is clear


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 1, 2014)

toggle said:


> i don't see the benefit in atacking the new gf, if he follows to form, she will be getting enough of that shit from him.



The new GF was slagging off Nigella about the 'throat grabbing' incident....bad form...


----------



## trashpony (Jul 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> i think artists upload their art to sell via the saatchi art website (like ebay or amazon marketplace i guess) rather than them being chosen to be shown. He wont make any money off them 'cause they wont get sold - they were blatantly put there to troll the site rather than being actual pieces of art.


That's very true - my old roommate from art school is on there selling some dull photographs and bad paintings


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2014)

salem said:


> I don't like him and I'm not sure how this website works but if it's an open market place then I think it's a difficult position for him and removing it is only going to have people calling him out for trying to cover it up. I suppose he could donate any commission to charity or something but I think it'd be a fairly empty gesture.


It's a silly season non-story concocted by our friends at (shock!) the daily mail. That said, I don't have any huge issues with highlighting what a shit Saatchi is again.

I do wish people would read these things a little deeper before sharing though. It's not much different to sharing them britain first memes everyone's been moaning about recently.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 1, 2014)

Where does this fit in with not profiting from crimes you've committed?


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2014)

There isn't any profit being made. Well, there might be now the pictures have recieved international press attention. But no-one was ever going to buy that shit before.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 1, 2014)

salem said:


> I don't like him and I'm not sure how this website works but if it's an open market place then I think it's a difficult position for him and removing it is only going to have people calling him out for trying to cover it up. I suppose he could donate any commission to charity or something but I think it'd be a fairly empty gesture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course people will comment and create, far be it from me to tell people what art they can or cannot make. But as ddraig rightly points out there's an issue around intent.  And I am also entitled to think of some art as stupid or appalling or wrong.


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2014)

What do you think the intent of the artists selling their art via the saatchi marketplace is?


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jul 1, 2014)

I know what my intent would have been in putting that painting up: and that's shaming the perpetrator of the DV in question.


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2014)

Well, quite. So what's the story here? Saatchi making money from art glorifying his acts of domestic violence, or some artists mocking & shaming him via his own art marketplace website?


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jul 1, 2014)

I would like it to be the latter.  I think the fucker is absolutely shameless so I expect he just doesn't care.


----------



## salem (Jul 1, 2014)

killer b said:


> Well, quite. So what's the story here? Saatchi making money from art glorifying his acts of domestic violence, or some artists mocking & shaming him via his own art marketplace website?


Exactly, I doubt he'd have the potential to make much at all from this (relatively speaking) so I'd say it's a combination of artists trying to make a name for themselves (and apparently a few having the same idea) and making a point too.

If he removed them it'd probably be a bigger story so might as well leave it and at least take a little bit of moral highground from the situation.


----------



## killer b (Jul 1, 2014)

Bitter&Twisted said:


> I would like it to be the latter.  I think the fucker is absolutely shameless so I expect he just doesn't care.


well, maybe. It is pretty puerile. I'd hope it at least irritates him having it brought up again though. He strikes me as a vain man, and vain men don't like having their disgraces rubbed in their faces.


----------



## Bitter&Twisted (Jul 1, 2014)

His shamelessness over-rides his vanity.  He can't be wrong about anything and will try to crush anyone who dares to say otherwise.  I think that's what the court case told us.  At least, that's what the court case told me.  He's either a psychopath or a sociopath, I haven't quite decided which yet.


----------

