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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

She did say it twice after gleeing the bedroom and telling Nadia, Keith and Cami. I rewatched earlier this afternoon.

Was it acclaimed Big Brother lawyer Kimberly Kisselovich?

https://twitter.com/Kimberly_Kisse/s...67124441067520

They must must must clarify exactly what happened, on BBOTS tonight.

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.

Indeed. The loo was filmed during last year's cbb during covert chats and upsets.

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.

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.

The OP is still going with 'groped', I see.