|
||||||||
So theres obviously cameras in the toilet to see how Jeremy groped Chloe |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,433
|
Quote:
There is endless speculation about this but we didn't see what happened.
How can we really judge this scenario? It will always be her word against his. It is just whether people think that him opening a loosely tied robe and possibly lightly touching her boob (it was very quick if he did) when drunk and not judging things right is a big enough deal for her to get that upset and be thrown out. I suspect the issue is many will feel they have had the same or worse happen to them at work, or in bars or clubs, on holiday and didn't make a big deal so Chloe should have shrugged it off as there seems to have been no malicious intent - just bad judgement and crossed wires. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 293
|
Quote:
I think that if he grazed it when opening the robe, he might have said he didn't touch her meaning he hadn't deliberately touched her, then later said he barely couched her meaning the amount of contact was minimal. In real-time, real life, people don't always phrase things in the best or clearest way.
However, I think his story was all over the place for other reasons. At one point he even seemed to be saying he thought she might be flirting. What law(s) do you have in mind? |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Warrington
Posts: 1
|
What baffles me here is, why was Chloe in Jeremy's private space anyway, it doesn't excuse his behaviour, but it hardly warrants him being chucked out, I watched her in x on the beach and she flirted outragiously with loads of guys,
Ken should be thrown out if Jeremy was. |
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,934
|
Quote:
She may not have been talking literally, was emotional etc. There could be any number of reasons why she described the 'effect' of the touching rather than literally, what he touched. If he only touched the dressing gown and her boob fell out then she may, in the heat of the moment, say that he pulled out her boob, which is what happened as an effect but was not what literally happened. After that she has to repeat it every time otherwise her story is not consistent and someone will spot the inconsistency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,433
|
Quote:
Someone did post up on twitter yesterday a law definition, I cannot remember exactly, which it was but it did say touching clothing not just body contact constituted offence in that law,
But something like this, somebody removing (or opening) your clothing without your consent is very different to somebody crushing up against you or bumping into you doe to the munber of people on board a Tube and movement of the Train. |
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,433
|
Quote:
That's an awful lot of 'maybe's. She may well have repeated what she said straightaway that he pulled out her boob but BB did not edit it in every time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,156
|
Quote:
Someone did post up on twitter yesterday a law definition, I cannot remember exactly, which it was but it did say touching clothing not just body contact constituted offence in that law,
https://twitter.com/Kimberly_Kisse/s...67124441067520 |
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,934
|
Quote:
There is endless speculation about this but we didn't see what happened.
How can we really judge this scenario? It will always be her word against his. |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,433
|
Quote:
What baffles me here is, why was Chloe in Jeremy's private space anyway, it doesn't excuse his behaviour, but it hardly warrants him being chucked out, I watched her in x on the beach and she flirted outragiously with loads of guys,
Ken should be thrown out if Jeremy was. But i think she was genuinely concerned and worried about him and trying to help. And he was opening up to her before he misread the signs. |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,361
|
Quote:
I believe they have cameras in the loo's as we've seen footage of HM's sitting in there crying before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,433
|
Quote:
Legally just touching her clothing is enough. The intent was there to move her clothing to see what was underneath - it doesn't matter his reason or alleged reason, he wasn't invited to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,433
|
Quote:
I think that if he grazed it when opening the robe, he might have said he didn't touch her meaning he hadn't deliberately touched her, then later said he barely couched her meaning the amount of contact was minimal. In real-time, real life, people don't always phrase things in the best or clearest way.
However, I think his story was all over the place for other reasons. At one point he even seemed to be saying he thought she might be flirting. What law(s) do you have in mind? But it still doesn't get away from his opening the robe in itself being wrong and he has never denied that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 30,158
|
The OP is still going with 'groped', I see.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:14.


