On 6/18/2013 4:24 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 6/18/2013 5:16 PM, Michel Boucher wrote:
>> jmcquown > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> So twist around and kick in him in the balls. Make sure he
>>> can't reproduce with one good high heel. I would never let
>>> anyone dare lay a hand on me like that.
>>
>> That's always an option, but obviously you weren't there.
>>
>
> Obviously I wasn't there. It's easy to be a spectator. Try living on
> the other side of that coin. I was married to an abusive man. Verbal,
> for the most part. He wouldn't have dared hit me but he did shove me
> and break up some furniture. I had him locked for a year after he
> stalked me, threatenend me and destroyed my property two years after our
> divorce. It really doesn't pay to be an asshole.
>
> Jill

I'm very saddened you had to experience that. Hopefully your life is in
a far more positive place now.

On 6/18/2013 4:29 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:02:25 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:00 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>> Now, YOU cite one example of ME criticising americans on here.
>>> Put up or shut up.
>>
>> Did I say YOU did? I said you've never made a comment like that when
>> it's one of your own posting shit about Americans
>>>
>>> I'm tired of playing with kid gloves with you... you're as irrational
>>> and fickle as they come, and I'm tired of it. I'll say it again,
>>> you're a ****ing idiot. Goodbye.
>>
>> Do whatever you want - it's no skin off my nose and you've only
>> exposed yourself for the hypocrite you truly are.
>
> Jesus H Christ. Look at Barbara make a fool out of herself.
>
> Jebus was right on the "irrational as they get" part, but I'll add
> "senseless" and "incoherent" to the mix. I don't think she posts with
> more than 5 brain cells at a time. And they aren't even from the same
> part of the brain.
>
> -sw
>

But does she act as Marty's little group-killing sycophant like you do Spin?

On 6/18/2013 4:58 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 6/18/2013 12:27 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 6/18/2013 3:48 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> That's the way it is in the animal kingdom. The alpha males keeps his
>>> women in line physically. She probably dishes out verbal abuse at times.
>>> It's hard to understand the abusive relationship in our modern times but
>>> that dates back to our dark, unenlightened, past and even to the dawn of
>>> mankind.
>>
>> Uh, what? Alpha males? No thank you.
>>
>> Jill
>
> My guess is that your average 8 year old that has been watching National
> Geographic TV is probably aware of the concept. Rejecting the idea won't
> make it cease to exist.
>
> The reality is that Ms. Lawson is a big, famous, girl with lots of
> support from strangers and fans and she's free to escape from her
> husband's firmly gripping hands at any time. I don't have any feelings
> as to whether or not she should do that because it's her decision, not
> mine.

Regardless of fame, fortune, fans or friends, abuse is a psychological
prison that can be as impossible to escape as addiction or any other
physical or mental illness.

I hope she breaks away and finds someone who will over and honor her as
a human being, not an object to be controlled.

On 6/18/2013 1:06 PM, casa bona wrote:
>
> Regardless of fame, fortune, fans or friends, abuse is a psychological
> prison that can be as impossible to escape as addiction or any other
> physical or mental illness.
>
> I hope she breaks away and finds someone who will over and honor her as
> a human being, not an object to be controlled.

Are you suggesting that she's a scared housewife that can't make her own
decisions and take care of herself? Fess up, you believe that she should
be rescued despite whatever she wants. That's fine with me - most people
would think the same way. I don't.

In article >, says...
> Considering that he did not appear to be squeezing hard enough to
choke,
> and she did not look as if she was reacting to being choked, it seemed
> possible that he was doing something other than actually choking her.
> Given that the paparazzi often have camera and video equipment, I
> reserve the right to be skeptical at anything they shoot and that gets
> published in a tabloid.

The police have confirmed that he received a police caution for
assault. UK law requires that the person must admit the offence in order
to receive a police caution for it.

Janet UK

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:30:47 -0600, casa bona > wrote:

> On 6/18/2013 10:34 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:04:20 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Just announced on the radio, he has accepted a 'Caution' from the police.
> >>
> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/201...police-caution
> >>
> >> --
> >
> > So, he'll be more careful about how he acts in public and everything
> > is swept under the rug. A "caution" from the police doesn't address
> > the real issue: he needs anger management classes.
> >
> Or to be put over Gordon Ramsay's knees and properly spanked.

Okay, I laughed.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 18/06/2013 6:55 PM, casa bona wrote:
>
>
>> I quite clearly mentioned several
>> times that I questioned the credibility of an article in a tabloid.
>
> That's your own straw man to ignite, have fun.
>


You aren't very bright are you. From the very start of this thread I
questioned the credibility of tabloids. And now you are suggesting a
strawman?


>
>
> I don't invent scenarios in which a man can simul-choke a woman.
>
> I think I'll control the idiom as far as sanity in relationships is
> concerned.
>

Yes. We have seen how sane you are.

On 18/06/2013 6:58 PM, casa bona wrote:
> On 6/18/2013 4:16 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 18/06/2013 6:12 PM, Susan wrote:
>>>> choked.
>>>
>>> She looked like someone really unhappy about having a man's hand around
>>> her throat. Asphixiation does not make the assault.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sobbing in tears? My wife and I both suffer from allergies. At this
>>>> time
>>>> of year you might see either one of us walking along rubbing our eyes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> After having put one's hands around one another's throats and twisting
>>> each other's noses hard?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> AAMOF, there have been playful nose tugs.
>>
> But enough about Canadian foreplay...

That's how Snifflis is spread.

On 18/06/2013 7:24 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article >, says...
>> Considering that he did not appear to be squeezing hard enough to
> choke,
>> and she did not look as if she was reacting to being choked, it seemed
>> possible that he was doing something other than actually choking her.
>> Given that the paparazzi often have camera and video equipment, I
>> reserve the right to be skeptical at anything they shoot and that gets
>> published in a tabloid.
>
> The police have confirmed that he received a police caution for
> assault. UK law requires that the person must admit the offence in order
> to receive a police caution for it.
>
>

Yes. And we have confirmed that is the case. Pity that it took so long
for that to be confirmed in the press. Not being British, I am
accustomed to having more credible news sources than tabloids and their
paparazzi shots.

On 18/06/2013 6:57 PM, casa bona wrote:

>>
>> Yes, but it is much more effort for me than it is for you.
>
> One of us doesn't make public excuses for violence against women.
>
> Enjoy your reputation, you've earned it.


You can revel in having been able to use your personality as a birth
control device.
Goodbye.

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:01:33 -0600, casa bona > wrote:

> On 6/18/2013 4:29 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:02:25 -0700, sf wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:00 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Now, YOU cite one example of ME criticising americans on here.
> >>> Put up or shut up.
> >>
> >> Did I say YOU did? I said you've never made a comment like that when
> >> it's one of your own posting shit about Americans
> >>>
> >>> I'm tired of playing with kid gloves with you... you're as irrational
> >>> and fickle as they come, and I'm tired of it. I'll say it again,
> >>> you're a ****ing idiot. Goodbye.
> >>
> >> Do whatever you want - it's no skin off my nose and you've only
> >> exposed yourself for the hypocrite you truly are.
> >
> > Jesus H Christ. Look at Barbara make a fool out of herself.
> >
> > Jebus was right on the "irrational as they get" part, but I'll add
> > "senseless" and "incoherent" to the mix. I don't think she posts with
> > more than 5 brain cells at a time. And they aren't even from the same
> > part of the brain.
> >
> > -sw
> >
>
> But does she act as Marty's little group-killing sycophant like you do Spin?

I don't value anything about him, especially his opinion.
Additionally, if Jebus doesn't have the backbone to say anything to
people when they're posting shit about Americans, he can damn well
STFU when something is reported (that happened to be true) about a
Brit.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:07:00 -0600, casa bona > wrote:

> On 6/18/2013 11:56 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:27:01 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 18/06/2013 11:15 AM, casa bona wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> That's my problem with it. The British tabloids and are notorious for
> >>>> creating situations. We have no idea of the context or why he laid
> >>>> hands on her. Later tabloid articles were a little more detailed but....
> >>>> tabloids... no credibility.
> >>>
> >>> Did the photos cloud the "context"?
> >>>
> >>> Does a man leaning over a table to choke a woman even bother you?
> >>
> >>
> >> For all I know she had complained of swollen glands and he was just
> >> feeling for the swelling. It does not look like an serious attempt to
> >> choke her and she does not look all that concerned. It is a tabloid.
> >> Expect it to try to blow something out of proportion.
> >
> > It's interesting to see how you read facial expressions.
> >
>
> Horrifying would be the word I'd choose.

He's really not *that* bad.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:07:41 -0600, casa bona > wrote:

> On 6/18/2013 11:58 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:38:03 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 18/06/2013 12:41 PM, sf wrote:
> >>
> >>> Somebody was taking a lot of pictures, so how is it that we just saw
> >>> images of him attacking her, none of her attacking him and no reports
> >>> from witnesses that she did anything? That nose pulling picture was a
> >>> real doozy showing that he was in the middle of a giant sized temper
> >>> tantrum - totally out of control. He was not treating her like a
> >>> human being, all he needed was a nose ring to twist.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Is he really pulling her nose. It doesn't look like the type of grip one
> >> would use to pull a nose, and she does not appear to be in the sort of
> >> pain one would expect if her nose was being pulled.
> >
> > My bad. He could have been picking a booger out of her nose and
> > twisting it just so he could get a better view up there.
> >
> I think you've mastered Canadian apologism...

<shoot> I was hoping the sarcasm would be obvious.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:43:30 -0600, casa bona > wrote:

> Your take obviously is accurate. I would amend "revenge" to the
> application of charges filed and a restraining order.

And remember that a restraining order is just a piece of paper, so be
wary at all times.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 6/18/2013 5:28 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:30:47 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/2013 10:34 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:04:20 +0100, "Ophelia"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just announced on the radio, he has accepted a 'Caution' from the police.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/201...police-caution
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> So, he'll be more careful about how he acts in public and everything
>>> is swept under the rug. A "caution" from the police doesn't address
>>> the real issue: he needs anger management classes.
>>>
>> Or to be put over Gordon Ramsay's knees and properly spanked.
>
> Okay, I laughed.
>

;-)

On 6/18/2013 5:29 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 18/06/2013 6:55 PM, casa bona wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I quite clearly mentioned several
>>> times that I questioned the credibility of an article in a tabloid.
>>
>> That's your own straw man to ignite, have fun.
>>
>
>
> You aren't very bright are you. From the very start of this thread I
> questioned the credibility of tabloids. And now you are suggesting a
> strawman?

I am indeed.

The photos stand regardless of where they were published, period.

>>
>>
>> I don't invent scenarios in which a man can simul-choke a woman.
>>
>> I think I'll control the idiom as far as sanity in relationships is
>> concerned.
>>
>
> Yes. We have seen how sane you are.

Sadly it's not rubbed off on you as of yet...

On 6/18/2013 5:30 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 18/06/2013 6:58 PM, casa bona wrote:
>> On 6/18/2013 4:16 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 18/06/2013 6:12 PM, Susan wrote:
>>>>> choked.
>>>>
>>>> She looked like someone really unhappy about having a man's hand around
>>>> her throat. Asphixiation does not make the assault.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sobbing in tears? My wife and I both suffer from allergies. At this
>>>>> time
>>>>> of year you might see either one of us walking along rubbing our eyes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After having put one's hands around one another's throats and twisting
>>>> each other's noses hard?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> AAMOF, there have been playful nose tugs.
>>>
>> But enough about Canadian foreplay...
>
> That's how Snifflis is spread.

Granting you 1 funny here...

On 6/18/2013 5:33 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 18/06/2013 7:24 PM, Janet wrote:
>> In article >, says...
>>> Considering that he did not appear to be squeezing hard enough to
>> choke,
>>> and she did not look as if she was reacting to being choked, it seemed
>>> possible that he was doing something other than actually choking her.
>>> Given that the paparazzi often have camera and video equipment, I
>>> reserve the right to be skeptical at anything they shoot and that gets
>>> published in a tabloid.
>>
>> The police have confirmed that he received a police caution for
>> assault. UK law requires that the person must admit the offence in order
>> to receive a police caution for it.
>>
>>
>
> Yes. And we have confirmed that is the case. Pity that it took so long
> for that to be confirmed in the press. Not being British, I am
> accustomed to having more credible news sources than tabloids and their
> paparazzi shots.
>
>
>
The shots were not faked, were they?

End of story.

On 6/18/2013 5:35 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 18/06/2013 6:57 PM, casa bona wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Yes, but it is much more effort for me than it is for you.
>>
>> One of us doesn't make public excuses for violence against women.
>>
>> Enjoy your reputation, you've earned it.
>
>
> You can revel in having been able to use your personality as a birth
> control device.

It's true, I've born no Canadians.

> Goodbye.

Toodles.

On 6/18/2013 5:36 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:01:33 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/2013 4:29 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:02:25 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:00 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now, YOU cite one example of ME criticising americans on here.
>>>>> Put up or shut up.
>>>>
>>>> Did I say YOU did? I said you've never made a comment like that when
>>>> it's one of your own posting shit about Americans
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm tired of playing with kid gloves with you... you're as irrational
>>>>> and fickle as they come, and I'm tired of it. I'll say it again,
>>>>> you're a ****ing idiot. Goodbye.
>>>>
>>>> Do whatever you want - it's no skin off my nose and you've only
>>>> exposed yourself for the hypocrite you truly are.
>>>
>>> Jesus H Christ. Look at Barbara make a fool out of herself.
>>>
>>> Jebus was right on the "irrational as they get" part, but I'll add
>>> "senseless" and "incoherent" to the mix. I don't think she posts with
>>> more than 5 brain cells at a time. And they aren't even from the same
>>> part of the brain.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>>
>>
>> But does she act as Marty's little group-killing sycophant like you do Spin?
>
> I don't value anything about him, especially his opinion.
> Additionally, if Jebus doesn't have the backbone to say anything to
> people when they're posting shit about Americans, he can damn well
> STFU when something is reported (that happened to be true) about a
> Brit.
>
Right on.

On 6/18/2013 5:37 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:07:00 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/2013 11:56 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:27:01 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/06/2013 11:15 AM, casa bona wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's my problem with it. The British tabloids and are notorious for
>>>>>> creating situations. We have no idea of the context or why he laid
>>>>>> hands on her. Later tabloid articles were a little more detailed but....
>>>>>> tabloids... no credibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did the photos cloud the "context"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does a man leaning over a table to choke a woman even bother you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For all I know she had complained of swollen glands and he was just
>>>> feeling for the swelling. It does not look like an serious attempt to
>>>> choke her and she does not look all that concerned. It is a tabloid.
>>>> Expect it to try to blow something out of proportion.
>>>
>>> It's interesting to see how you read facial expressions.
>>>
>>
>> Horrifying would be the word I'd choose.
>
> He's really not *that* bad.
>
But who wants to find out?

On 6/18/2013 5:40 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:07:41 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/2013 11:58 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:38:03 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/06/2013 12:41 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Somebody was taking a lot of pictures, so how is it that we just saw
>>>>> images of him attacking her, none of her attacking him and no reports
>>>>> from witnesses that she did anything? That nose pulling picture was a
>>>>> real doozy showing that he was in the middle of a giant sized temper
>>>>> tantrum - totally out of control. He was not treating her like a
>>>>> human being, all he needed was a nose ring to twist.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is he really pulling her nose. It doesn't look like the type of grip one
>>>> would use to pull a nose, and she does not appear to be in the sort of
>>>> pain one would expect if her nose was being pulled.
>>>
>>> My bad. He could have been picking a booger out of her nose and
>>> twisting it just so he could get a better view up there.
>>>
>> I think you've mastered Canadian apologism...
>
> <shoot> I was hoping the sarcasm would be obvious.
>

Twas!

On 6/18/2013 5:43 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:43:30 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>
>> Your take obviously is accurate. I would amend "revenge" to the
>> application of charges filed and a restraining order.
>
> And remember that a restraining order is just a piece of paper, so be
> wary at all times.

Sound advice, they get violated all too regularly.

I'm still shocked that a British prosecutor hasn't filed on this; I
would never have imagined a cultural leniency for such behavior existed.

I mean this is the country that revels in the speed camera and has more
surveillance cams per capita than any other nation.

Odd, just plain odd.

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:35:11 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 18/06/2013 6:57 PM, casa bona wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Yes, but it is much more effort for me than it is for you.
>>
>> One of us doesn't make public excuses for violence against women.
>>
>> Enjoy your reputation, you've earned it.
>
>
>You can revel in having been able to use your personality as a birth
>control device.
>Goodbye.

LOL. Nice, isn't it?
You'd also think they could stick to one nym at a time in a thread...

On 6/18/2013 6:12 PM, Jeßus wrote:

> Can you not see the point I am making here? Refer back to my first paragraph.

I'll refer back to your first few posts on this subject - spousal abuse.

You clearly said:

" I wonder why anyone would read tabloids."

" Same shit, different flavour :-)"

" I have no trouble ignoring them :-)"

" You're a ****ing idiot."

Now then, aside from your conversational "eloquence", was there some
point you had to make, other than your dislike of tabloids and
apparently even the other more mainstream news organizations?

I think folks here got your point, and just as quickly what you're about.

I see no ambiguity at all as regards you.

Ta.

On 6/18/2013 6:15 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:35:11 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 18/06/2013 6:57 PM, casa bona wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but it is much more effort for me than it is for you.
>>>
>>> One of us doesn't make public excuses for violence against women.
>>>
>>> Enjoy your reputation, you've earned it.
>>
>>
>> You can revel in having been able to use your personality as a birth
>> control device.
>> Goodbye.
>
> LOL. Nice, isn't it?
> You'd also think they could stick to one nym at a time in a thread...
>
How many do you propose I'm using anyway, troll?

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:29:32 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:02:25 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:00 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>> Now, YOU cite one example of ME criticising americans on here.
>>> Put up or shut up.
>>
>> Did I say YOU did? I said you've never made a comment like that when
>> it's one of your own posting shit about Americans
>>>
>>> I'm tired of playing with kid gloves with you... you're as irrational
>>> and fickle as they come, and I'm tired of it. I'll say it again,
>>> you're a ****ing idiot. Goodbye.
>>
>> Do whatever you want - it's no skin off my nose and you've only
>> exposed yourself for the hypocrite you truly are.
>
>Jesus H Christ. Look at Barbara make a fool out of herself.
>
>Jebus was right on the "irrational as they get" part, but I'll add
>"senseless" and "incoherent" to the mix. I don't think she posts with
>more than 5 brain cells at a time. And they aren't even from the same
>part of the brain.

Indeed. I've taken shit from her on and off over the years, and in the
past few years I always looked the other way to stay on good terms and
maintain the peace. In hindsight I don't why I did that and realise it
was a mistake. One week you're apparently okay, the next week not.
Rarely (if any) any explanation why.
One description I omitted was 'arrogant'. She's arrogant as all hell.
Not a good combination of traits to have.

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:29:26 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 18/06/2013 6:55 PM, casa bona wrote:
>>
>>> I quite clearly mentioned several
>>> times that I questioned the credibility of an article in a tabloid.
>>
>> That's your own straw man to ignite, have fun.
>>
>You aren't very bright are you. From the very start of this thread I
>questioned the credibility of tabloids. And now you are suggesting a
>strawman?

Just like me, attempting to have nothing more than a discussion on the
media in relation to this article, which is apparently an outrage... I
just can't fathom these people's logic

You type words into a coherent sentence - in the language they can
obviously comprehend - and yet to them the words means something else
entirely.

We might as well be discussing quantum physics here, as they're
clearly so well-trained by the mass media that anything but a direct,
hostile reaction to this guy's actions is unacceptable. And some of
these people vote!

On 18/06/2013 8:36 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:29:26 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 18/06/2013 6:55 PM, casa bona wrote:

>> You aren't very bright are you. From the very start of this thread I
>> questioned the credibility of tabloids. And now you are suggesting a
>> strawman?
>
> Just like me, attempting to have nothing more than a discussion on the
> media in relation to this article, which is apparently an outrage... I
> just can't fathom these people's logic
>
> You type words into a coherent sentence - in the language they can
> obviously comprehend - and yet to them the words means something else
> entirely.
>
> We might as well be discussing quantum physics here, as they're
> clearly so well-trained by the mass media that anything but a direct,
> hostile reaction to this guy's actions is unacceptable. And some of
> these people vote!
>
It is a hot button topic for some people. They have their own issues
and agendas and run around with blinkers on. I never once tried to
defend the guy's abuse. I questioned the credibility of the photos and
the context. I wondered why, since the paparizzi tend to have video
cameras as well as stills, they didn't catch the incident on video. The
couple at he next table?.... could have been struck by the nearness of a
celebrity. I have seen people who are being choked. There is look of
alarm on their faces. What I'll bet you don't often see is the attacker
and the victim holding hands.

In article >, says...
>
> On 6/18/2013 12:06 PM, Janet wrote:
> > In article >, says...
> >
> >> Late word, the unfree kingdom bobbies have issued him a "caution".
> >
> > To accept a police caution for assault, he had to admit to the
> > police he assaulted her and now has a police record.
> >
> > >how special
> >
> > smarter than you think;
> >
> > A humiliating reversal of all his previous coverups, a very grave legal
> > position if he ever faces similar accusations again, and total dynamite
> > in divorce court.
> >
> > All while it's fresh in the public mind and without Nigella needing to
> > say a word.
> >
> > I'd say his goose is well and truly cooked.
> >
> > Janet UK
> >
>
> Honestly I really do hope so.
>
> I'd have thought Britain would have had harsher laws in this area.

We do, of course.

But she has deliberately chosen not to go that route. IMO she had very
little to gain from pressing charges, other than a lot more media
humiliation and distress for herself and her children, facing
questioning in court from defence lawyers for a man whose advertising
business is all about the manipulation of public image. Pain dragging on
for months.

This not some average wife with no safe place except getting him
locked up, no money to support her kids, and prospective child custody
issues. If she wants she can just walk away tomorrow; she's holding all
the cards; a public admission of assault, his character in the gutter,
grounds for separation/divorce. Plenty of her own money and the kids
are hers.

Janet.

On 18/06/2013 9:08 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article >, says...
>>
>> On 6/18/2013 12:06 PM, Janet wrote:
>>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>>> Late word, the unfree kingdom bobbies have issued him a "caution".
>>>
>>> To accept a police caution for assault, he had to admit to the
>>> police he assaulted her and now has a police record.
>>>
>>> >how special
>>>
>>> smarter than you think;
>>>
>>> A humiliating reversal of all his previous coverups, a very grave legal
>>> position if he ever faces similar accusations again, and total dynamite
>>> in divorce court.
>>>
>>> All while it's fresh in the public mind and without Nigella needing to
>>> say a word.
>>>
>>> I'd say his goose is well and truly cooked.
>>>
>>> Janet UK
>>>
>>
>> Honestly I really do hope so.
>>
>> I'd have thought Britain would have had harsher laws in this area.
>
> We do, of course.
>
> But she has deliberately chosen not to go that route.




I am amazed that you were able to read her mind.

In article >, says...
>
> On 18/06/2013 7:24 PM, Janet wrote:
> > In article >, says...
I
> >> reserve the right to be skeptical at anything they shoot and that gets
> >> published in a tabloid.
> >
> > The police have confirmed that he received a police caution for
> > assault. UK law requires that the person must admit the offence in order
> > to receive a police caution for it.

>
> Yes. And we have confirmed that is the case. Pity that it took so long
> for that to be confirmed in the press.

He was cautioned on the afternoon of Monday 18th June; it was
reported on UK news that evening and in Tuesday morning's press.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22947383


Not being British, I am
> accustomed to having more credible news sources than tabloids and their
> paparazzi shots.

Perhaps in Canada tabloids are the only news media you're used to?
Time to widen your outlook.


Janet UK

On 6/18/2013 6:28 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> She's arrogant as all hell.
> Not a good combination of traits to have.

Pot/kettle?

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:17:44 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:36:51 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:01:33 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/18/2013 4:29 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:02:25 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:37:00 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, YOU cite one example of ME criticising americans on here.
>>>>>> Put up or shut up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did I say YOU did? I said you've never made a comment like that when
>>>>> it's one of your own posting shit about Americans
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm tired of playing with kid gloves with you... you're as irrational
>>>>>> and fickle as they come, and I'm tired of it. I'll say it again,
>>>>>> you're a ****ing idiot. Goodbye.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do whatever you want - it's no skin off my nose and you've only
>>>>> exposed yourself for the hypocrite you truly are.
>>>>
>>>> Jesus H Christ. Look at Barbara make a fool out of herself.
>>>>
>>>> Jebus was right on the "irrational as they get" part, but I'll add
>>>> "senseless" and "incoherent" to the mix. I don't think she posts with
>>>> more than 5 brain cells at a time. And they aren't even from the same
>>>> part of the brain.
>>>>
>>>> -sw
>>>>
>>>
>>> But does she act as Marty's little group-killing sycophant like you do Spin?
>>
>> I don't value anything about him, especially his opinion.
>> Additionally, if Jebus doesn't have the backbone to say anything to
>> people when they're posting shit about Americans, he can damn well
>> STFU when something is reported (that happened to be true) about a
>> Brit.
>
>All he said was "I wonder why anyone would read tabloids."

That's right.

>Get a grip, you psycho bitch!

Meh, who cares anymore.
This is all so ridiculous, I'm wondering if I've been trolled.

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:51:20 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 18/06/2013 8:36 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:29:26 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/06/2013 6:55 PM, casa bona wrote:
>
>>> You aren't very bright are you. From the very start of this thread I
>>> questioned the credibility of tabloids. And now you are suggesting a
>>> strawman?
>>
>> Just like me, attempting to have nothing more than a discussion on the
>> media in relation to this article, which is apparently an outrage... I
>> just can't fathom these people's logic
>>
>> You type words into a coherent sentence - in the language they can
>> obviously comprehend - and yet to them the words means something else
>> entirely.
>>
>> We might as well be discussing quantum physics here, as they're
>> clearly so well-trained by the mass media that anything but a direct,
>> hostile reaction to this guy's actions is unacceptable. And some of
>> these people vote!
>>
>It is a hot button topic for some people. They have their own issues
>and agendas and run around with blinkers on.

It seems that way.

>I never once tried to defend the guy's abuse.

I know. Not good enough, apparently.

>I questioned the credibility of the photos and
>the context. I wondered why, since the paparizzi tend to have video
>cameras as well as stills, they didn't catch the incident on video. The
>couple at he next table?.... could have been struck by the nearness of a
>celebrity. I have seen people who are being choked. There is look of
>alarm on their faces. What I'll bet you don't often see is the attacker
>and the victim holding hands.

I can't comment on the pics because I haven't even looked at the link,
let alone the pics themselves.

On 6/18/2013 6:36 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:29:26 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 18/06/2013 6:55 PM, casa bona wrote:
>>>
>>>> I quite clearly mentioned several
>>>> times that I questioned the credibility of an article in a tabloid.
>>>
>>> That's your own straw man to ignite, have fun.
>>>
>> You aren't very bright are you. From the very start of this thread I
>> questioned the credibility of tabloids. And now you are suggesting a
>> strawman?
>
> Just like me, attempting to have nothing more than a discussion on the
> media in relation to this article, which is apparently an outrage... I
> just can't fathom these people's logic
>
> You type words into a coherent sentence - in the language they can
> obviously comprehend - and yet to them the words means something else
> entirely.
>
> We might as well be discussing quantum physics here, as they're
> clearly so well-trained by the mass media that anything but a direct,
> hostile reaction to this guy's actions is unacceptable. And some of
> these people vote!
>
>
The two of you are compassion-less sociopaths.

On 18/06/2013 10:00 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article >, says...
>>
>> On 18/06/2013 7:24 PM, Janet wrote:
>>> In article >, says...
> I
>>>> reserve the right to be skeptical at anything they shoot and that gets
>>>> published in a tabloid.
>>>
>>> The police have confirmed that he received a police caution for
>>> assault. UK law requires that the person must admit the offence in order
>>> to receive a police caution for it.
>
>>
>> Yes. And we have confirmed that is the case. Pity that it took so long
>> for that to be confirmed in the press.
>
> He was cautioned on the afternoon of Monday 18th June; it was
> reported on UK news that evening and in Tuesday morning's press.
>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22947383


Silly me. I should have read that yesterday, the day before it was
reported in a reputable source.
>
>
> Not being British, I am
>> accustomed to having more credible news sources than tabloids and their
>> paparazzi shots.
>
> Perhaps in Canada tabloids are the only news media you're used to?
> Time to widen your outlook.
>
>


Was it the reading or the comprehension that you had trouble with there?

On 6/18/2013 6:51 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 18/06/2013 8:36 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:29:26 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/06/2013 6:55 PM, casa bona wrote:
>
>>> You aren't very bright are you. From the very start of this thread I
>>> questioned the credibility of tabloids. And now you are suggesting a
>>> strawman?
>>
>> Just like me, attempting to have nothing more than a discussion on the
>> media in relation to this article, which is apparently an outrage... I
>> just can't fathom these people's logic
>>
>> You type words into a coherent sentence - in the language they can
>> obviously comprehend - and yet to them the words means something else
>> entirely.
>>
>> We might as well be discussing quantum physics here, as they're
>> clearly so well-trained by the mass media that anything but a direct,
>> hostile reaction to this guy's actions is unacceptable. And some of
>> these people vote!
>>
> It is a hot button topic for some people. They have their own issues
> and agendas and run around with blinkers on. I never once tried to
> defend the guy's abuse.

That's a lie.

> I questioned the credibility of the photos and
> the context.

That's a straw man.

> I wondered why, since the paparizzi tend to have video
> cameras as well as stills, they didn't catch the incident on video.

Maybe they didn't have a video camera.

> The
> couple at he next table?.... could have been struck by the nearness of a
> celebrity.

That made them horrified?

Do tell.

You invent abuse friendly scenarios like mad.

> I have seen people who are being choked.

Girlfriends of yours?

> There is look of
> alarm on their faces.

I bet you know that look too well.

> What I'll bet you don't often see is the attacker
> and the victim holding hands.

Spouses, who knew?

Why are you still making excuses for this?

What is wrong with you anyway?

I'm taking a strong enough dislike to you to consider further measures.

"Dave Smith" wrote in message ...

On 18/06/2013 2:17 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:48:12 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 18/06/2013 1:26 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>>
>>>> It obviously wasn't a seriously forceful gesture or else there would
>>>> have been more of a struggle and the cops likely would have been called
>>>> at the time. PLus, being a celebrity hangout and teeming with
>>>> paparazzi,
>>>> it would have been caught on video. Knifing him would have been an
>>>> overreaction. I am not saying that he isn't obviously somewhat abusive.
>>>> Apparently he got a "caution" from the police..... nothing to lay
>>>> charges over.
>>>>
>>> snip
>>> A woman will almost always try to keep things calm, smooth things
>>> over, try to keep up appearances.etc.
>>
>>
>> Oh poppycock. A wise and graceful lady may try to keep things calm. In
>> the real world, there are lots of women who will freak out over nothing.
>>
>>
>>> Men will use that to their
>>> advantage. He's had her under his thumb long enough that she isn't
>>> going to throw a hissy, especially in public. Retribution is at home,
>>> when she's alone.
>>> I'm struggling to understand you. In essence, you are saying it was
>>> her fault for not putting up a fight. But, him, he's just a little
>>> out of line to you?
>>
>> I am not saying that at all. Given that he does not appear to be using
>> any force and that she does not appear to be at alarmed, it doesn't look
>> like he is choking her. A video might have told a much different story
>> than a series of still photos in a tabloid.
>>
>>
>>> You need to put your thinking cap on. Women are not on this planet to
>>> take abuse, be raped and accept the damages and have their lives run
>>> by a bunch of men.
>>
>> Rape? Are they saving those photos for the follow-up story?
>> Where the hell did rape enter this story?
>>
>>
> Your attitude that this is just a little tiff puts you in company with
> those men who tolerate anything toward a woman. I an seriously ticked
> at you.
>


Because I refuse to buy your suggestion that "a woman will always try to
keep things calm..."
This is timely. I just got back from a motorcycle ride during which I
stopped for a coffee. As I was getting on the bike to leave I noticed a
woman sitting in the car next to me. Just as I started the motor she
jumped out of her car and started yelling and screaming at the guy who
had just pulled in on the other side. I couldn't help but think about
your comment about how a woman will always try to keep things calm, and
her I was watching a woman jump out of her car and start screaming at
her husband/ boyfriend.



My attitude is that I was very dubious about the nature of the incident
based on photos in a tabloid, especially when the man's grip does not
seem to be tight and the alleged victim's face is not displaying the
sort of fear that I would expect from someone who is being choked.

Color me naïve; color me out of date; color me out of touch. But don't call
me stupid. For the life of me, I cannot fathom a single reason why her
husband (or any person) would have his hands around her throat! Is that some
form of endearment that I am missing?

The degree of pressure on her throat is the indicator of how serious this
is? Fear may not be apparent to you. But then, you are not being throttled.

Alan

On 6/18/2013 7:08 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article >, says...
>>
>> On 6/18/2013 12:06 PM, Janet wrote:
>>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>>> Late word, the unfree kingdom bobbies have issued him a "caution".
>>>
>>> To accept a police caution for assault, he had to admit to the
>>> police he assaulted her and now has a police record.
>>>
>>> >how special
>>>
>>> smarter than you think;
>>>
>>> A humiliating reversal of all his previous coverups, a very grave legal
>>> position if he ever faces similar accusations again, and total dynamite
>>> in divorce court.
>>>
>>> All while it's fresh in the public mind and without Nigella needing to
>>> say a word.
>>>
>>> I'd say his goose is well and truly cooked.
>>>
>>> Janet UK
>>>
>>
>> Honestly I really do hope so.
>>
>> I'd have thought Britain would have had harsher laws in this area.
>
> We do, of course.

How so?

In this nation he'd be in a cell, right now.


> But she has deliberately chosen not to go that route. IMO she had very
> little to gain from pressing charges, other than a lot more media
> humiliation and distress for herself and her children, facing
> questioning in court from defence lawyers for a man whose advertising
> business is all about the manipulation of public image. Pain dragging on
> for months.

Here a district attorney would have made the case for the state,
regardless of whether she consented, period.

> This not some average wife with no safe place except getting him
> locked up, no money to support her kids, and prospective child custody
> issues. If she wants she can just walk away tomorrow; she's holding all
> the cards; a public admission of assault, his character in the gutter,
> grounds for separation/divorce. Plenty of her own money and the kids
> are hers.
>
> Janet.
>

The issue is if she walks back into the house WITH him.

How many cards she holds is irrelevant if she chooses to return to an
abusive relationship.

We understand and act on that here.

Why don't you?