DS Forums

 
 

So theres obviously cameras in the toilet to see how Jeremy groped Chloe


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-01-2015, 19:21
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,433
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.
We did hear the conversation - her saying "that's not on, i'm leaving now" (or wtte - need to rewatch to be sure) and her starting to cry as she exited. He obviously did something for her to go from being kind and caring towards him one moment and accusing him of undoing her clothes and molestation the next. She really didn't have time to make it up and given he also immediately admitted to having opened her robe to see what she had on underneath i don't think there can be that much room for debate.

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.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 11-01-2015, 19:34
dagger42
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 293
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?
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,
dagger42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 19:48
Do me a favour
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.
Do me a favour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 19:56
Javed
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,934
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.
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.
Javed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 19:56
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,433
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,
I believe it does yes. I studied some law when i was a teenager and remember that the legal definition of actual Bodily Harm was incredibly strict. As my lecturer said, if it was taken literally every day, you'd have a case against several people on the Tube in London rush hour each day. It is pretty much an bodily contact, including through clothes, at all if not expressly invited, whether there is malicious intent or physical harm inflicted. Basically, nearly everybody (including Police) take it in context and show a bit of common sense over it.

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.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 19:57
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,433
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.
She did say it twice after gleeing the bedroom and telling Nadia, Keith and Cami. I rewatched earlier this afternoon.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 19:57
achro
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,156
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,
Was it acclaimed Big Brother lawyer Kimberly Kisselovich?

https://twitter.com/Kimberly_Kisse/s...67124441067520
achro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 19:57
Javed
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,934
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.
They must must must clarify exactly what happened, on BBOTS tonight.
Javed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 20:00
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,433
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.
I can see what you mean as he did say several times that he was okay and didn't need anybody with him. I know that when i've been so drunk I've needed to spend some time with my head down a toilet i would rather have been on my own.

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.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 20:05
silven
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,361
I believe they have cameras in the loo's as we've seen footage of HM's sitting in there crying before.
Indeed. The loo was filmed during last year's cbb during covert chats and upsets.
silven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 20:08
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,433
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.
Oh yes i agree. Both legally and morally. What i meant was it doesn't matter if he touched her (inadvertently or not) just opening her robe was bad enough to mean he had to leave.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 20:12
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,433
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?
Yes i agree with you. He firstly said he didn't touch her, meaning he hadn't groped her. He then said barely touched her meaning that he might have grazed her boob, or even her shoulder when he opened the robe. But of course he'd just chicked half his guts up after being very drunk so wasn't thinking straight. Indeed when he first left the toilet, i didn't think he realised there was going to be a problem.

But it still doesn't get away from his opening the robe in itself being wrong and he has never denied that.
kitkat1971 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2015, 20:30
JonDoe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 30,158
The OP is still going with 'groped', I see.
JonDoe is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:14.