If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
So the majority is always right?
lol.
We did? Damn I don't remember it, it's a subject I don't often get involved in because I am happy to admit that I don't ohave enough understanding to offer an opinion I can back up in great detail...
Violence is violence, the only difference there is amount the damage caused.
Would she have to put him in hospital before you would be concerned? When is the right time to say "this is not acceptable"? Surely it is when harm is caused.
Now the relationship between the individuals remains their business. However, when you have a high profile campaign being waged by one part against the horrors of domestic violence, don't you think it unacceptable that the same person then commits that very act?
1. It's not illegal. Yet.
2. If I personally waged a campaign against smoking as part of my job, but smoked myself, then my position would be untenable. If I cannot take my own advice then I can hardly complain that others commit the same act. I certainly could not maintain the moral high ground.
3. If I was also responsible for campaigning against other high profile people about hypocritical action then again, forcing them to resign, my being a hypocrite would make my position untenable.
Regardless of whether she resigns, I don't expect to see her at The Sun for much longer. I have a feeling that Murdoch will replace her himself soon after the embarassment she has cause his organisation.
I wonder how many men have been afraid to come out and talk about domestic abuse because they should be "big enough to handle it." As for her hitting him, how is it any different to him hitting her in a heated argument? I don't mean punching her or anything, just giving her a 'little slap'. After all, if he doesn't do any serious damage, that makes it alright right? :banghead:
He has a fat lip. She admits hitting him. I'd say that was pretty open and shut
Exactly, as there are very few NHS staff in such a lofty position the somparison doesn't work.
No because it's not my policy, just one I am instructed to enforce.
Cigars I think, which makes his opposition interesting...
I'm sad enough to actually have looked up the number of time my name and the word 'cannabis' have appeared in the same thread - given my comments about how little I comment on drug use. It's about ten times. Ever.
Did you mean this thread.
I made three comments (in a 31 page thread) and that was only to remark that I felt cannabis has side effects. Considering the rest of that thread, I think you have the wrong Kent based person in mind.
Perhaps your prolonged use has affected your memory?
No offence
Good to know that The Sun can simper with the best of them, when a story comes along that's embarrassing to it's editor, and knocks Phil Mitchell's personal affairs into a cocked hat. The killer journalistic instincts go out the window. Will this herald a change of stance for the paper, with other celebrities being entitled to the benefit of the doubt, rather than lurid headlines about marriages under threat? Somehow, I don't think so...
was grant aka ross kemp actually
Democracy in action P&D style!
David Blunkett!!!!
Can this man not stay out of the papers for even one day!
My memory is either super-good or extremely muddled. In this case, it would appear to be the latter
"Ross, 41 — also the star of ITV’s hit series Ultimate Force about the SAS — did not sustain any injuries.
A cut to his lip which was reported by news agencies had in fact been sustained during filming. "
Indeed............ :rolleyes:
You spelt farce wrong.
Erm.. was both actually.
Different times, different places...
So you think a woman should lose her job as editor of paper - political greviences aside - which takes a stand against domestic abuse because she slapped her husband?
Is that really what you believe?
For the same reason that I believe a member of the government who cheats on his wife shouldn't necessarily have to lose his job- but a member of the government who preaches about 'back to basics', morals and against adultery and then is caught playing away should most definitely lose his job. Just as it happened to a few Tories during their Back to Basics campaign in the early 90s.
So it is only to be expected the woman who has been tirelessly campaigning against domestic abuse and demanding action against brutes and beats who beat their spouses should do the decent thing after she's done the very thing she's campaigning against.
She should have been charged and tried, but- as always- it's one rule for one and one rule for another. I don't think she got away with it because she is a woman, more that she is powerful and could probably embarass quite a few people. It's strange how the CPS and police are really quick to throw the book at people- unless they are rich and can fight back, of course.
No, for the record, I don't think she is a human being.
It used to be that if the complainant wasn't prepared to come to court then the matter was dropped, but it does not always happen like that now. Complainants can be and are summonsed to court by the CPS; the CPS don't need a complainant's permission to proceed with a case. If the defendant admits to hitting the complainant in police interview then he can be charged and convicted with or without the complainant.
I don't think this does any good at all, but that's the state of play. A lot of this won't be in your textbooks, because it is more about procedure rules than the actual statute.
Irish?
GI: you won't study this at university, so don't worry about it. University deals with what the law is, by looking at the statute and the caselaw, and changes in procedure is nothing to do with the statute or caselaw. The CPS push for more convictions because of Governmental policy change- not anything to do with the law itself.
The criminal law is fascinating, but the law itself is dull. If I have to do any more s100/s101 applications I'll cry.
I think it's worse if it is.
Surely whether she's charged or should be Kemp's prerogative - prosecuting someone for a slap when the 'victim' has no interest in following the incident up with charges is highly disturbing...
If she's proved to have done it, why not? Just ask yourself, if the roles were reversed and a male editor of The Sun had been found to have slapped his wife in the heat of an argument, would you expect him to resign? I can't answer that for you, but I reckon you would. One rule for one......
The law was changed because when it was up to the victim to prosecute, there were many instances when the victim was assaulted again and again until they agreed to withdraw charges.
It appears that Ross Kemp is now claiming that he got his thick lip elsewhere.