Daley: Could be facing charge for common assault.

[Rob!]

Said on his twitter (I don't know how to do the twitter thing in here)

Daley Ojuederie ‏@IamDaleyStar 1h
Could be getting charged for common assault over the BB incident. Just got told a decision will be made in a few days. #ridiculous


Thoughts?

[fingers]

He won't be, If they subpoena all the relevant tapes there will be no case to answer.
I think he's still hungry for publicity!

[zakman440]

Good, he deserves it.

[Roy Mars III]

trying to extend his time in the spotlight, there will be no charges

[Black Dagger]

Lock the daft awful bastard up and throw away the key imo.

[Pincho Paxton]

I think that Hazel has to call it assault, and she didn't.

[RichardG]

If he doesn't get charged for this then I bet it will be long until he's charged for something else

He clearly has issues

[reece(:]

Good stuff.

[Jake.]

Wanting his twitter followers to feel sad for him or something, dick

[RichardG]

Wanting his twitter followers to feel sad for him or something, dick

His chavvy teen girl followers are doing exactly that

One even calls herself a "#boomstar" :laugh3: which I assume is his name for his fans since he plastered it all over his silly clothing line

[Rob!]

I don't get why you'd even post this sort of thing on Twitter. What a twat.

[Verbal]

He put his hands around a persons neck and acted aggressively, there are definitely grounds there.

Whether Hazel will follow through with the charges is another thing.

[Cherie]

He put his hands around a persons neck and acted aggressively, there are definitely grounds there.

Whether Hazel will follow through with the charges is another thing.



Probably trying to whip up some anti Hazel feeling. She would have to press charges, can't really see her bothering with all that.

[CaudleHalbard]

He won't be, If they subpoena all the relevant tapes there will be no case to answer.
I think he's still hungry for publicity!

Agreed. He's just keeping himself in the public eye.

Hazel could equally get charged with assault, but she won't be either.

[Roy Mars III]

I don't get why you'd even post this sort of thing on Twitter. What a twat.

because it is a lie. if there was actually a chance of charges he would not talk about it

[fingers]

Agreed. He's just keeping himself in the public eye.

Hazel could equally get charged with assault, but she won't be either.

Wouldn't it be "hilarious" if Daley found the testicular fortitude to press charges against HER!

[CaudleHalbard]

Wouldn't it be "hilarious" if Daley found the testicular fortitude to press charges against HER!

If in the unlikely event he is charged, his lawyers may advise him to do just that.

"Attack is the best form of defence" etc.

[Northern Monkey]

I don't think he'd get charged for that if they saw the tapes tbf,He took it too far but Hazel was egging him on.She would be daft to press charges,he could get her for pulling his shorts down too.She would prob do herself more harm than good.

[Verbal]

Wouldn't it be "hilarious" if Daley found the testicular fortitude to press charges against HER!

For what?

[CaudleHalbard]

For what?

Indecent assault and common assault, I would hazard a guess.

[Verbal]

Indecent assault and common assault, I would hazard a guess.

Not being argumentative, I don't really give a toss for either of them. I don't remember her doing anything that could be classes as assault. What happened?

[CaudleHalbard]

Not being argumentative, I don't really give a toss for either of them. I don't remember her doing anything that could be classes as assault. What happened?

Sorry but they TECHNICALLY both committed aasaults.

It all comes down to consent.

[arista]

He won't be, If they subpoena all the relevant tapes there will be no case to answer.
I think he's still hungry for publicity!



Well he should call This Morning
and book a live interview on itv

[Scream]

If he done that on camera then he's probably a lot more likely to do it again off camera imo

[Vanessa]

This is nice. :)

Daley Ojuederie ‏@IamDaleyStar 10m
Nice chat with @dexter_koh on the phone just now. #Legend #MrChow
Retweeted by @dexter_koh

[Verbal]

Sorry but they TECHNICALLY both committed aasaults.

It all comes down to consent.

I'm still blissfully unaware of what incident you're on about. Her pulling his shorts down?

[Jake.]

he makes me sick, acting like a victim

[joeysteele]

If what happened in the safe house,happened in a public place outside the house then Daley,with or without Hazel pressing charges would have been more than likely arrested and possibly facing such a charge.
Hazel would not have for any reason whatsoever.

Bearing in mind this happened on BB and was dealt with at the time, also that Hazel is unlikely to want it taken further then it is likely that at the worst he will get a caution or no charges brought at all this time.

He has actually been lucky that it happened where it did and had BB not stepped in quickly one wonders what greater harm may have come from ths incident.

[CaudleHalbard]

I'm still blissfully unaware of what incident you're on about. Her pulling his shorts down?

That would be the indecent assault and is probably the more serious assault. The others were where she kicked him and pressed a pillow pillow on his face.

All are technically criminal assaults by Hazel, but she would say it was part of the playfighting and was thus done with Daley's consent.

Equally he will say that what he did - slapping her bum and then grabbing her and pretending he would headbutt her was also with her consent and he will call in evidence the fact that she said "Go for it then" after he said "You don't want to see me when I'm angry".

In my view the police are unlikely to be able to convince the CPS to prosecute either Hazel or Daley. I doubt they will even try.

Hope that helps. :)

[Verbal]

That would be the indecent assault and is probably the more serious assault. The others were where she kicked him and pressed a pillow pillow on his face.

All are technically criminal assaults by Hazel, but she would say it was part of the playfighting and was thus done with Daley's consent.

Equally he will say that what he did - slapping her bum and then grabbing her and pretending he would headbutt her was also with her consent and he will call in evidence the fact that she said "Go for it then" after he said "You don't want to see me when I'm angry".

In my view the police are unlikely to be able to convince the CPS to prosecute either Hazel or Daley. I doubt they will even try.

Hope that helps. :)

Indecent assault for pulling his shorts down when they were clearly flirting? You'd be laughed out of court. He's a big bloke, he was very threatening, people were commenting about it all the time on here.

What he did is and was a criminal offence.

[sassysocks]

He won't be, If they subpoena all the relevant tapes there will be no case to answer.
I think he's still hungry for publicity!

Since when did a man putting his hands round a woman's throat in an intimidating and threatening manner equal no case to answer? It is most definitely assault.

[fingers]

Since when did a man putting his hands round a woman's throat in an intimidating and threatening manner equal no case to answer? It is most definitely assault.

Rubbish.

[Pincho Paxton]

Daley knew he was in the wrong because he made excuses in the diary room.. "I was tired, and can't handle drink." So if he is making excuses then he did something wrong.

[Livia]

He put his hands around a persons neck and acted aggressively, there are definitely grounds there.

Whether Hazel will follow through with the charges is another thing.

It's not down to Hazel. She's not the one pressing charges.

Sorry but they TECHNICALLY both committed aasaults.

It all comes down to consent.

Technically, I can assure you that you're quite wrong. It doesn't come down to consent, it comes down to intent.

[Vanessa]

I do think Daley is to blame, but Hazel is not entirely innocent either.

[Toy Soldier]

If he had previous he would probably be facing a charge, but if his claims at the beginning of the show (that he's never been in trouble with the police / has a clean record) are true there's no way he'd be getting more than a slap on the wrist.

When I was 10 (ten!!) years old, a 35 year old neighbor punched me full force in the face and almost broke my cheek bone, then slammed me into a wall and kicked me in the side. For drawing a penis in the dirt on his van.

He had no criminal record, so all he got was a caution.

...says it all, in my opinion. Apparently you need to do quite a lot to actually be charged with assault.

[sassysocks]

Rubbish.

It's attitudes like that which causes so many problems in the first place. It is not ok for men to put their hands round a woman's throat in a threatening manner, and I think you will find the law agrees with that.

[Pincho Paxton]

I do think Daley is to blame, but Hazel is not entirely innocent either.

She looked innocent to me. If a jury decides then she probably looks innocent.

[Verbal]

It's not down to Hazel. She's not the one pressing charges

I was under the impression the police need the cooperation of the accuser or they drop any charge.

[Ellen]

I doubt the police will charge him, maybe given a warning.

[sassysocks]

I do think Daley is to blame, but Hazel is not entirely innocent either.

Hazel wasn't aggressive and intimidating - she didn't threaten anyone. It's 2013 - it isn't a criminal offence for women to flirt, even if some living in the past would like it to be.

[Pincho Paxton]

I was under the impression the police need the cooperation of the accuser or they drop any charge.

Yeah, me too. Hazel has to press charges.

[Livia]

That would be the indecent assault and is probably the more serious assault. The others were where she kicked him and pressed a pillow pillow on his face.

All are technically criminal assaults by Hazel, but she would say it was part of the playfighting and was thus done with Daley's consent.

Equally he will say that what he did - slapping her bum and then grabbing her and pretending he would headbutt her was also with her consent and he will call in evidence the fact that she said "Go for it then" after he said "You don't want to see me when I'm angry".

In my view the police are unlikely to be able to convince the CPS to prosecute either Hazel or Daley. I doubt they will even try.

Hope that helps. :)

LOL... oh dear, where to start. You keep using the word "technically" when you're referring to what you perceive to be a legal matter, and then go on to say something you've just made up.

If there was any mileage (or money) in pressing charges on Hazel, Daley's lawyers would have done it already. But there isn't.

The police don't have to try to convince the CPS to prosecute. The CPS will prosecute if there is enough evidence to bring the case to court.

I hope that helps.

[Verbal]

She looked innocent to me. If a jury decides then she probably looks innocent.

God it wouldnt get to Crown Court, nobody was murdered

[Jake.]

Livia :love:

[Toy Soldier]

It's not down to Hazel. She's not the one pressing charges.

Technically, I can assure you that you're quite wrong. It doesn't come down to consent, it comes down to intent.

Both of these are accurate; I don't think most people commenting really understand the UK legal system and are going my what they've seen on US TV shows...

In the UK, the authorities can pursue a charge without the victim's consent, if they have evidence and feel that the aggressor poses a threat to other people. Charges don't have to be "pressed".

For the same reason the second statement is true: it's the intent of the aggressor that matters, as that's what poses the future risk.

[Niamh.]

If he had previous he would probably be facing a charge, but if his claims at the beginning of the show (that he's never been in trouble with the police / has a clean record) are true there's no way he'd be getting more than a slap on the wrist.

When I was 10 (ten!!) years old, a 35 year old neighbor punched me full force in the face and almost broke my cheek bone, then slammed me into a wall and kicked me in the side. For drawing a penis in the dirt on his van.

He had no criminal record, so all he got was a caution.

...says it all, in my opinion. Apparently you need to do quite a lot to actually be charged with assault.

wow, that's awful

[Toy Soldier]

I was under the impression the police need the cooperation of the accuser or they drop any charge.

Only if the description of the series of events depends on the testimony of the victim. If there's another source, such as other witnesses or (in this case) video footage of the incident, they wouldn't need it to continue with charges.

[sassysocks]

Both of these are accurate; I don't think most people commenting really understand the UK legal system and are going my what they've seen on US TV shows...

In the UK, the authorities can pursue a charge without the victim's consent, if they have evidence and feel that the aggressor poses a threat to other people. Charges don't have to be "pressed".

For the same reason the second statement is true: it's the intent of the aggressor that matters, as that's what poses the future risk.

And he definitely poses a threat to women. If he can act like that on public TV, what the hell is he like behind closed doors. Unfortunately, I don't imagine this will be the last time we hear about him attacking a woman.

[Vicky.]

Either he is trying to stay in the limelight by lying about this

Or Hazel is by pressing charges now to try to stay in the limelight

Either way I dont much care anymore, but I still don't think Hazel did anything wrong at the time. If shes using it now to get attention though, then I do think shes in the wrong.

Edit. Hmm...just seen hazel wouldnt necessarily have to press charges :suspect: I would think though that the charges would have come about sooner if it wasnt to do with what she decided.

[Vanessa]

Hazel wasn't aggressive and intimidating - she didn't threaten anyone. It's 2013 - it isn't a criminal offence for women to flirt, even if some living in the past would like it to be.

She was goading him and then pulled his pants down. Not exactly blameless.

[Livia]

I was under the impression the police need the cooperation of the accuser or they drop any charge.

No, Hazel wouldn't have to press charges. Anyway, I imagine this matter was reported by a lot of people so they are really the complainants. It was on TV, lots of people witnessed it. Hazel was still in the house when the wheels were set in motion I reckon.

[sassysocks]

She was goading him and then pulled his pants down. Not exactly blameless.

She was playing, he was aggressive and threatening - hugh difference. Are you seriously trying to suggest she 'deserved' it?

[Livia]

Both of these are accurate; I don't think most people commenting really understand the UK legal system and are going my what they've seen on US TV shows...

In the UK, the authorities can pursue a charge without the victim's consent, if they have evidence and feel that the aggressor poses a threat to other people. Charges don't have to be "pressed".

For the same reason the second statement is true: it's the intent of the aggressor that matters, as that's what poses the future risk.

Actually... I am a lawyer so I have a pretty good working knowledge of the legal system.

[joeysteele]

Only if the description of the series of events depends on the testimony of the victim. If there's another source, such as other witnesses or (in this case) video footage of the incident, they wouldn't need it to continue with charges.

Exactly.

Also I have to say to Livia too, as always brilliantly put and explained.

[Toy Soldier]

wow, that's awful

I know! And I totally still have sour grapes about it :joker:... but oh well. I think he was actually charged for fixing up dodgy cars about a year later, so maybe there was some karmic justice there.

[Vanessa]

She was playing, he was aggressive and threatening - hugh difference. Are you seriously trying to suggest she 'deserved' it?

No. I'm saying she was not entirely innocent.

[sassysocks]

No. I'm saying she was not entirely innocent.

Hazel pulling his pants down did not justify him assaulting her. He's a bully and a coward.

[Toy Soldier]

Actually... I am a lawyer so I have a pretty good working knowledge of the legal system.

I meant the people disagreeing with you, the talk of "pressing charges" is very US soap opera...

[Vanessa]

Hazel pulling his pants down did not justify him assaulting her. He's a bully and a coward.

I agree.

[CaudleHalbard]

LOL... oh dear, where to start. You keep using the word "technically" when you're referring to what you perceive to be a legal matter, and then go on to say something you've just made up.

If there was any mileage (or money) in pressing charges on Hazel, Daley's lawyers would have done it already. But there isn't.

The police don't have to try to convince the CPS to prosecute. The CPS will prosecute if there is enough evidence to bring the case to court.

I hope that helps.

Sorry but I don't think you have a clue here. Not your fault as it seems you have no legal training. :)

Police have to present evidence to the CPS. Unless that evidence is convincing the CPS wont prosecute.

If Daley or indeed Hazel were charged - and it does not need the consent of the other party - the party charged could use "consent" as a defence. In view of what we have seen recorded on video it is very likely the consent defence would succeed. Which is why prosecutions of either party is unlikely.

However...... if the CPS were unwise enough to prosecute one party, the other could find it useful to press charges as part of their defence. I am not saying that would happen, but it is a technique which can and has been used.

[Livia]

I meant the people disagreeing with you, the talk of "pressing charges" is very US soap opera...

Ahhh I see. I was putting it all down to the fact you're Scottish and you buggers do your own thing when it comes to the law.

[armand.kay]

not him trying to stay relevant, who the hell tweets about getting charged http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/korn0818/ea2a4fdb.gif

[Verbal]

I meant the people disagreeing with you, the talk of "pressing charges" is very US soap opera...

:conf: no it's not

I could probably find an episode of the bill where its used several times

[Livia]

Sorry but I don't think you have a clue here. Not your fault as it seems you have no legal training. :)

Police have to present evidence to the CPS. Unless that evidence is convincing the CPS wont prosecute.

If Daley or indeed Hazel were charged - and it does not need the consent of the other party - the party charged could use "consent" as a defence. In view of what we have seen recorded on video it is very likely the consent defence would succeed. Which is why prosecutions of either party is unlikely.

However...... if the CPS were unwise enough to prosecute one party, the other could find it useful to press charges as part of their defence. I am not saying that would happen, but it is a technique which can and has been used.


I have a degree from Cambridge that says you're wrong. I'd be interested to hear about your own legal training. A whole series of Law & Order UK doesn't make you an expert. I'm not an expert... and I studied for four years.

[CaudleHalbard]

not him trying to stay relevant, who the hell tweets about getting charged http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/korn0818/ea2a4fdb.gif

Probably increases his cred amongst his followers of whom he has about 40000, compared with 23 before he went in the house.

[Livia]

:conf: no it's not

I could probably find an episode of the bill where its used several times

To use a legal term... I rest my case.

[Verbal]

Didn't take long for this thread to turn into 'my dads bigger than your dad' did it

[Livia]

Didn't take long for this thread to turn into 'my dads bigger than your dad' did it

In what sense?

[CaudleHalbard]

I have a degree from Cambridge that says you're wrong. I'd be interested to hear about your own legal training. A whole series of Law & Order UK doesn't make you an expert. I'm not an expert... and I studied for four years.

I actually worked for a government solicitor for 4 years, so a bit of practical experience, as opposed to your theoretical, and I too have a legal qualification. Any further offers? :p:D

[Pincho Paxton]

No. I'm saying she was not entirely innocent.

I tickle you, and you kill me. It's the step up from play to fight that is the crime.

[Verbal]

In what sense?

I think you fully know what I mean

[joeysteele]

Sorry but I don't think you have a clue here. Not your fault as it seems you have no legal training. :)

Police have to present evidence to the CPS. Unless that evidence is convincing the CPS wont prosecute.

If Daley or indeed Hazel were charged - and it does not need the consent of the other party - the party charged could use "consent" as a defence. In view of what we have seen recorded on video it is very likely the consent defence would succeed. Which is why prosecutions of either party is unlikely.

However...... if the CPS were unwise enough to prosecute one party, the other could find it useful to press charges as part of their defence. I am not saying that would happen, but it is a technique which can and has been used.

You really are joking aren't you here, I cannot let this pass.

Don't be so offensive, Livia has a vast knowledge of the law,I as a law student myself, recently graduated, have learned a great deal from Livia.

I think it is you with respect that has no real knowledge of the law and if you do have any, you clearly have no fair one in my view, sorry.

[CaudleHalbard]

Yoiu really are joking aren't you here, I cnanot let this pass.

Don't be so offensive, Livia has a vast knowledge of the law,I as a law student myself, recently graduated, have learned a great deal from Livia.

I think it is you with respect that has no real knowledge of the law and if you do have any, you clearly have no fair one in my view, sorry.

You are both wonderful theoreticians, I'm sure but it seems neither of you has worked for a government solicitor. As I did for several years.

[Livia]

I think you fully know what I mean

I think you mean that you're a little put out because I was accused of having no legal training and I stated that I do. Is that what you mean? And that I used my area of expertise to put someone right who was getting it wrong. I'm sorry if that upset you. Let us know when we get to your own area of expertise if you have one, and I will gladly acquiesce to your greater knowledge.

[Verbal]

I have a masters in physics, from Prinston, and by the law of *Smithsonian simpleton's* I can assure you that you are all wrong.

Honestly







*not a real thing

[Verbal]

I think you mean that you're a little put out because I was accused of having no legal training and I stated that I do. Is that what you mean? And that I used my area of expertise to put someone right who was getting it wrong. I'm sorry if that upset you. Let us know when we get to your own area of expertise if you have one, and I will gladly acquiesce to your greater knowledge.

Ok :thumbs:

[Livia]

You are both wonderful theoreticians, I'm sure but it seems neither of you has worked for a government solicitor. As I did for several years.

Actually, I work for a political party right now, and in about a month I start my bar training.

[joeysteele]

You are both wonderful theoreticians, I'm sure but it seems neither of you has worked for a government solicitor. As I did for several years.

One would expect you,from that scenario,to have a better grasp of the real law then in that case,other than the poor one you are demonstrating and being offensive to others as to their knowledge.

[fingers]

I have a masters in physics, from Prinston, and by the law of *Smithsonian simpleton's* I can assure you that you are all wrong.

Honestly







*not a real thing

Where is this "Prinston" place?

[CaudleHalbard]

I have a masters in physics, from Prinston, and by the law of *Smithsonian simpleton's* I can assure you that you are all wrong.

Honestly







*not a real thing

I have a friend who bought PhD from an online university based in Arizona.

He's a baggage handler at Heathrow.

[Verbal]

Where is this "Prinston" place?

Just outside Hogwarts

[CaudleHalbard]

One would expect you,from that scenario,to have a better grasp of the real law then in that case,other than the poor one you are demonstrating and being offensive to others as to their knowledge.

I don't honestly think it is I who am demonstrating the poor grasp. It is others who are getting hold of the wrong end of the stick and reading things into what is being said which are not actually being said.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

was just wondering, if Daley had said " you **** with me and I will do you" would he have gotten away with it? :joker:

Anyways isn't this thing over yet. For **** sake, he didn't ****ing club her shiaaaat :conf: even charles saatchi got a lighter backlash :conf:

[Verbal]

Bradley Manning has just been sentenced to 35 years, you would think all these legal eagles would have better things to waggle their willies over, than this crap.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

if you're going to charge him bloody do it already and get it overwith what the **** are you dragging it on for!!

[CaudleHalbard]

I start my bar training.


Good luck! I actually instructed Parliamentary Counsel in the drafting of legislation for a number of years. It certainly sharpens you up! I was privileged to have that opportunity.

[sassysocks]

was just wondering, if Daley had said " you **** with me and I will do you" would he have gotten away with it? :joker:

Anyways isn't this thing over yet. For **** sake, he didn't ****ing club her shiaaaat :conf: even charles saatchi got a lighter backlash :conf:

That's what happens when you expose your nasty side on public TV. He is a serious assault, or worse, waiting to happen that one.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

That's what happens when you expose your nasty side on public TV. He is a serious assault, or worse, waiting to happen that one.

Maybe he just needs 10 blondes and a good seeing to in copacabana.

[anne666]

I love it when real legal experts stop the nonsense that some people spout about this.

[Verbal]

I love it when real legal experts stop the nonsense that some people spout about this.

Law students? Hardly experts :joker:

[reece(:]

Law students? Hardly experts :joker:
Lawyer*

[Verbal]

Lawyer*

Where?

[reece(:]

Where?
Livia?

[Winkie Expand]

Daley: Could be facing whatever falls below irrelevance and needed to suck one last drop of attention from his BB tenure.

[susie q]

I have a degree from Cambridge that says you're wrong. I'd be interested to hear about your own legal training. A whole series of Law & Order UK doesn't make you an expert. I'm not an expert... and I studied for four years.

Hi livia
Interested to hear that you studied at Cambridge. I work for Cambridge university, but not for the legal dept, or law faculty so dont know much about
the law. Even before the neck grabbing incident, he was behaving strangely over the make up thing for instance. I would like to think that the threat of
legal action would be a bit of wake up call for him, but somehow I doubt it.:xyxwave:

[CaudleHalbard]

From the CPS website (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#consent):

On a charge of Common Assault, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove absence of consent: see R v Brown (A.) [1994] 1 A.C. 212, HL. It is possible for a lack of consent to be inferred from evidence other than direct evidence from the victim: see CPS v Shabbir [2009] EWHC 2754 (Admin). Where actual or grievous bodily harm or a wound is caused, however, consent will be no defence in the absence of good reason.

So to make a charge stick on Daley, the CPS would have to prove that Hazel had not consented.

[Daffodil]

He acted aggressively and as such shouldn't go scot free... however Hazel didn't get so much as a teeny scratch. It is ironic that all this fuss is being made when out there in the big wide world, women are cowering in corners or semi conscious due to the aggressiveness of their men and the police who turn a blind eye because it's 'just a domestic'.

[Verbal]

Livia?

Having a degree in film studies does not make you a film director

[fingers]

Having a degree in film studies does not make you a film director

What does a "Master's in Physics" from PRINSTON make you?

[Verbal]

What does a "Master's in Physics" from PRINSTON make you?

You're so desperately eager to point out what you think was a spelling mistake, you're completely unable to see that I was taking the piss.

[sassysocks]

He acted aggressively and as such shouldn't go scot free... however Hazel didn't get so much as a teeny scratch. It is ironic that all this fuss is being made when out there in the big wide world, women are cowering in corners or semi conscious due to the aggressiveness of their men and the police who turn a blind eye because it's 'just a domestic'.

Exactly - and I wonder how many times it has happened to a partner of Daley's behind closed doors.

Don't you see that the fact he acted like that on public TV makes you wonder what he gets up to behind closed doors. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he has previous 'just a domestic' black marks against him.

[DanaC]

He acted aggressively and as such shouldn't go scot free... however Hazel didn't get so much as a teeny scratch. It is ironic that all this fuss is being made when out there in the big wide world, women are cowering in corners or semi conscious due to the aggressiveness of their men and the police who turn a blind eye because it's 'just a domestic'.

And what he did speaks directly to that culture of violence.

Domestic violence is a progressive thing. It rarely turns into a nightmare over night.

Someone mentioned the thing with the make up. That was very telling. An attempt to engage in controlling behaviour, and specifically controlling what she displayed of herself. This is one of the classic signs that women (and men, but mainly women) are warned to look out for in a new relationship. And one of the signs to look out for if you are worried about someone else in a potentially abusive relationship.

[fingers]

You're so desperately eager to point out what you think was a spelling mistake, you're completely unable to see that I was taking the piss.

Clever you!

[reece(:]

Having a degree in film studies does not make you a film director
Bloody hell, just because someone isn't employed doesn't mean they don't hold the knowledge..are you kidding me.

[Verbal]

Bloody hell, just because someone isn't employed doesn't mean they don't hold the knowledge..are you kidding me.

If you've just left Uni and never actually worked as a Lawyer... you're not a Lawyer.

[DanaC]

Interestingly, in an article in the Metro (taken i think from the Daily Hatemail) Daley claimed that he would never be violent towards a woman because he himself had been sexually and physically abused as a youngster.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/21/big-brothers-daley-ojuederie-ive-been-abused-so-i-would-never-be-violent-to-anyone-3891640/

He told The Daily Star: ‘I’ve been through abuse. It was sexual stuff when I was young. And it still affects me now.

‘It’s awful that people would think I’d be violent towards someone. I would never be abusive because I know what it’s like.’

Yet the profiles of abusers commonly include personal experience of abuse as children.

Daley said the abuse, which happened while he was living in foster care, has left him with emotional scars and unable to trust women or make new friends.

So, he is unable to trust women, and has anger problems (for which he is apparently receiving counselling) borne of childhood abuse.

The pieces are all there.

[CaudleHalbard]

If the law students on here don't think that consent is a defence to common assault (a pretty basic concept), you do wonder about the quality of their legal education. Lol! :joker:

[pcro]

Would be nonsense. Unless Hazel is pressing for it, which would be her right, the matter should be dropped.

[DanaC]

If you've just left Uni and never actually worked as a Lawyer... you're not a Lawyer.

I thought most law students worked in legal practices as interns these days?

[CaudleHalbard]

I thought most law students worked in legal practices as interns these days?

Making the tea doesn't make you a lawyer either. :joker:

[reece(:]

If you've just left Uni and never actually worked as a Lawyer... you're not a Lawyer.
Who cares about the label, they have the knowledge they know MORE THAN YOU. Accept it and move on because it can't be debated.

[Northern Monkey]

Well....I thought we'd all be friends after BB finished,Seems not.lol

[DanaC]

Making the tea doesn't make you a lawyer either. :joker:

Yeah...no. That's not what interns are for these days. These days interns do real actual work, for free. So much so that there is some unease in the higher education sector about what amounts to a form of indentured servitude, since getting onto the ladder in any way requires that someone has been an intern and got that experience. They're over a barrel. And (some of) the companies that take them on in that capacity get a lot of work for free.

[CaudleHalbard]

Anyway, inter-member slanging matches aside (:D), I think we can fairly safely conclude that - despite Daley's tweet - it is unlikely charges will be brought against him.

He would be able to use "consent (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#consent)" as a defence - and there is video evidence to back this up.... which is a rarity!

[Verbal]

Who cares about the label, they have the knowledge they know MORE THAN YOU. Accept it and move on because it can't be debated.

I'm not questioning that someone with the ability to complete a Law Degree is far more intellectually superior than I will ever be. How arrogant of you to make such an assumption, by the way.

I'm merely making the point that until you have done actual paid work. You're just someone with a degree.

Its like a Soldier who has just finished basic training thinking they're Rambo. Until they've done a tour of duty, they know feck all.

[DanaC]

Bet they know the rules and regulations though. And I bet their knowledge of procedure is bang up to date.

[CaudleHalbard]

Bet they know the rules and regulations though. And I bet their knowledge of procedure is bang up to date.

That's where the term 'barrack room lawyer' came from.

An army rookie who knows all the rules and regulations, but bugger all about the real world application of them!

[DanaC]

Aye, I'm familiar with the term :p


Since we're flinging around our credentials, I'm a military historian *grins*

[sassysocks]

I'm not questioning that someone with the ability to complete a Law Degree is far more intellectually superior than I will ever be. How arrogant of you to make such an assumption, by the way.

I'm merely making the point that until you have done actual paid work. You're just someone with a degree.

Its like a Soldier who has just finished basic training thinking they're Rambo. Until they've done a tour of duty, they know feck all.

I have to disagree with the first paragraph as having a degree, of any kind, does not necessarily prove someone is intellectually superior.

Many people who don't have a degree are capable to gaining one - but haven't for whatever reason - money and circumstance being a major factor.

In particular, those lucky enough to have benefited from a private education have very much been given a helping hand - doesn't make them more intelligent.

[DanaC]

True dat.

[reece(:]

I'm not questioning that someone with the ability to complete a Law Degree is far more intellectually superior than I will ever be. How arrogant of you to make such an assumption, by the way.

I'm merely making the point that until you have done actual paid work. You're just someone with a degree.

Its like a Soldier who has just finished basic training thinking they're Rambo. Until they've done a tour of duty, they know feck all.
No you WERE stating that people with a degree haven't a clue so shouldn't start acting like staples of knowledge. And calling me names on here says more about you than me:xyxwave:

[Vanessa]

Well....I thought we'd all be friends after BB finished,Seems not.lol

Wait until CBB starts! :joker:

[CaudleHalbard]

To get to "uni" these days means very little. Some degrees are about the equivalent of a low grade A-level from a couple of decades, or so, back.

[reece(:]

To get to "uni" these days means very little. Some degrees are about the equivalent of a low grade A-level from a couple of decades, or so, back.
What a baseless statement.

[DanaC]

Dunno about that CaudleHalberd. I study and teach at a Russell Group university and the kids there are pushed hard. Nothing easy about it. And nothing whatsoever like an a-level. It;s an entirely different learning structure.




[eta] Also, since you were responding in relation to someone who's studied law at Cambridge, I;d say it's pretty irrelevant what 'some' unis are like. Oxbridge is tough. Very tough. A 2:1 from oxford or cambridge is considered the equivalent of a first from most other good universities.

[Verbal]

No you WERE stating that people with a degree haven't a clue so shouldn't start acting like staples of knowledge. And calling me names on here says more about you than me:xyxwave:

Please, show me where I said people with degrees haven't a clue? All I said was you are not a Lawyer because you have a Law Degree. Calling you names? Where?

You know NOTHING about me, yet you felt the need to write, in capitals no less, that they KNOW MORE THAN YOU

I could be Rumpole of the Bailey for all you know

[Seanbon]

[/B]

Probably trying to whip up some anti Hazel feeling. She would have to press charges, can't really see her bothering with all that.

No she doesn't! If there are witnesses,or TV evidence,the cops can charge him,with or without her making a complaint!!

[reece(:]

Dunno about that CaudleHalberd. I study and teach at a Russell Group university and the kids there are pushed hard. Nothing easy about it. And nothing whatsoever like an a-level. It;s an entirely different learning structure.




[eta] Also, since you were responding in relation to someone who's studied law at Cambridge, I;d say it's pretty irrelevant what 'some' unis are like. Oxbridge is tough. Very tough. A 2:1 from oxbridge is considered the equivalent of a first from most other good universities.
I think it's insulting to say that we have it easy nowadays, even at A level the standard is really high and boundaries are raising year after year.

[sassysocks]

Please, show me where I said people with degrees haven't a clue? All I said was you are not a Lawyer because you have a Law Degree. Calling you names? Where?

You know NOTHING about me, yet you felt the need to write, in capitals no less, that they KNOW MORE THAN YOU

I could be Rumpole of the Bailey for all you know

To be an 'expert' in anything requires training/education/knowledge and experience. Newly qualified's in anything need experience to practice effectively.

[Northern Monkey]

Wait until CBB starts! :joker:

Yeah,I bet it's gonna be heated in here!:hugesmile:

[Vanessa]

Yeah,I bet it's gonna be heated in here!:hugesmile:

Especially if Chris goes in! :eek:

[Verbal]

To be an 'expert' in anything requires training/education/knowledge and experience. Newly qualified's in anything need experience to practice effectively.

I agree

[Seanbon]

If in the unlikely event he is charged, his lawyers may advise him to do just that.

"Attack is the best form of defence" etc.

That would be considered reactionary,a vexatious complaint,and wouldn't be taken seriously,by the cops or the courts. Doubt either will be charged anyway!!

[sassysocks]

And how many of the 'celebs' will be real celebs? A real 'celeb' wouldn't be seen dead doing BB. It will be a selection of failed soap actors, aspring glamour models (always the cheap versions, not the real deal) and maybe the odd x-factor reject.

[DanaC]

I think it's insulting to say that we have it easy nowadays, even at A level the standard is really high and boundaries are raising year after year.

I agree.

To be fair to CaudleHalberd, there are some courses and some institutions that muddy the water. But they aren't representative of the entire university sector.

A-levels have changed in many ways, and you'll often find academics in higher education bemoaning the fact that they don't prepare students for degree level study. But that's not because the a-levels have become easier. It's just because the structure of them has altered to mean that the jump from gcse (o level as was) to a-level is less than it once was in terms of learning style.

The difference between o-level and a-level used to be the big leap. Then the a-levels prepared for degree level study. Now the gcse works as preparation for a-level, and the big leap is in the move to degree. None of that means that A-levels have got easier.

[RichardG]

I think it's insulting to say that we have it easy nowadays, even at A level the standard is really high and boundaries are raising year after year.

It's so frustrating

I get my GCSE results tomorrow and I worked so hard for months in advance of taking the exams, yet the reports keep flying in that everything is far too easy and the grades people achieve mean nothing. If they keep putting us down then no one will put any effort in at all. :nono:

[DanaC]

Well said Richard.

But ya know, they've been saying this stuff for years m'dear. They used to come out with these reports when i was doing my olevels/gcses waaaay back in the Jurassic period :p


Don't listen to it. Ignore it. It's just a news story and an excuse for us oldies to get on our collective high horse about how much better our generation was. All bollocks.

[Verbal]

Well said Richard.

But ya know, they've been saying this stuff for years m'dear. They used to come out with these reports when i was doing my olevels/gcses waaaay back in the Jurassic period :p

Beat me to it lol they used to say the same when I was in school going on for 20 years ago.

[Verbal]

Best of luck Richard. Hope you do well, mate.

[Northern Monkey]

It's so frustrating

I get my GCSE results tomorrow and I worked so hard for months in advance of taking the exams, yet the reports keep flying in that everything is far too easy and the grades people achieve mean nothing. If they keep putting us down then no one will put any effort in at all. :nono:

I'm only 31,But i've been hearing that for years since i left school.I would'nt worry about it.You know you worked hard for them.

[Josy]

Back on topic please....


Hazel doesn't need to press charges btw, well that's it how works here I don't know about anywhere else.

[Seanbon]

LOL... oh dear, where to start. You keep using the word "technically" when you're referring to what you perceive to be a legal matter, and then go on to say something you've just made up.

If there was any mileage (or money) in pressing charges on Hazel, Daley's lawyers would have done it already. But there isn't.

The police don't have to try to convince the CPS to prosecute. The CPS will prosecute if there is enough evidence to bring the case to court.

I hope that helps.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

[Vanessa]

Back on topic please....


Hazel doesn't need to press charges btw, well that's it how works here I don't know about anywhere else.

Yes, i agree.

[RichardG]

Well said Richard.

But ya know, they've been saying this stuff for years m'dear. They used to come out with these reports when i was doing my olevels/gcses waaaay back in the Jurassic period :p


Don't listen to it. Ignore it. It's just a news story and an excuse for us oldies to get on our collective high horse about how much better our generation was. All bollocks.

Best of luck Richard. Hope you do well, mate.

I'm only 31,But i've been hearing that for years since i left school.I would'nt worry about it.You know you worked hard for them.

:love: thank you :amazed:

[Josy]

:conf: what harm is this genuinely interesting conversation doing that required a mod to referee it? The thread was started about Law, we are still talking about Law.

The thread is in the BB section and is about Daley and Hazel and what happened in BB, feel free to make a thread in another section to discuss other things and keep questions like this to pm in future so you aren't taking the thread off topic any further.

Thanks.

[joeysteele]

To get to "uni" these days means very little. Some degrees are about the equivalent of a low grade A-level from a couple of decades, or so, back.

Don't be so insulting, I worked darned hard to get my grades to get to Uni,and I also worked endlessly to win my degrees too.
You speak for yourself if you must with your nonsense but stop generalising about everyone else.

What an atrocious attitude and I think you should be made to withdraw this comment,possibly along with several others you have made as to law students particularly on here in this thread.
Ridiculous and totally uncalled for.

[Seanbon]

From the CPS website (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#consent):

On a charge of Common Assault, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove absence of consent: see R v Brown (A.) [1994] 1 A.C. 212, HL. It is possible for a lack of consent to be inferred from evidence other than direct evidence from the victim: see CPS v Shabbir [2009] EWHC 2754 (Admin). Where actual or grievous bodily harm or a wound is caused, however, consent will be no defence in the absence of good reason.

So to make a charge stick on Daley, the CPS would have to prove that Hazel had not consented.

Are you for real? Hazel,or the police,would have to prove that she didn't consent to being grabbed by the neck and threatened with a "nutting"?!? I don't think your parliamentary experience has taught you well!! Who consents to the above scenario???:conf:

[CaudleHalbard]

[/I][/B]

Are you for real? Hazel,or the police,would have to prove that she didn't consent to being grabbed by the neck and threatened with a "nutting"?!? I don't think your parliamentary experience has taught you well!! Who consents to the above scenario???:conf:

Someone who says "Go for it" after being told "You don't want to see me when I'm angry". How about that..... just for starters?

How about the fact that Hazel at no point shouted out despite the fact she knew half a dozen cameras were witnessing the scene and help was near to hand.

How about the fact that when BB called her in to the DR she merely said she was "A little bit scared"... and she had to think about that because BB were almost pressing her to say it.

I could go on!

The threat was all part of the playfight and Hazel knows that even if you don't.

Which is why charges are unlikely to be brought and unlikely to stick even if brought.

[Seanbon]

Best of luck Richard. Hope you do well, mate.

I'll second that!!:xyxwave:

[sassysocks]

Someone who says "Go for it" after being told "You don't want to see me when I'm angry". How about that..... just for starters?

How about the fact that Hazel at no point shouted out despite the fact she knew half a dozen cameras were witnessing the scene and help was near to hand.

How about the fact that when BB called her in to the DR she merely said she was "A little bit scared"... and she had to think about that because BB were almost pressing her to say it.

I could go on!

The threat was all part of the playfight and Hazel knows that even if you don't.

Which is why charges are unlikely to be brought and unlikely to stick even if brought.

Standing up to an aggressive bully and putting on a 'brave face' does not mean she gave consent for his behaviour towards her. She is a strong woman and was not about to let that idiot intimidate her even if she felt a 'little scared'. You could see she was shocked at how things had got so out of hand - affecting her reaction when called into the diary room.

You seem to have a rather scewered view of what took place that night - and are hardly in a position to boldly state that the threat was all part of the a playfight, unless you know something the rest of us don't, which you clearly don't.

[Pincho Paxton]

Someone who says "Go for it" after being told "You don't want to see me when I'm angry". How about that..... just for starters?

How about the fact that Hazel at no point shouted out despite the fact she knew half a dozen cameras were witnessing the scene and help was near to hand.

How about the fact that when BB called her in to the DR she merely said she was "A little bit scared"... and she had to think about that because BB were almost pressing her to say it.

I could go on!

The threat was all part of the playfight and Hazel knows that even if you don't.

Which is why charges are unlikely to be brought and unlikely to stick even if brought.

That's not consent. That is an emotional response. "Go for it!" means go for it on TV with all of these witnesses.

[Seanbon]

Someone who says "Go for it" after being told "You don't want to see me when I'm angry". How about that..... just for starters?

How about the fact that Hazel at no point shouted out despite the fact she knew half a dozen cameras were witnessing the scene and help was near to hand.

How about the fact that when BB called her in to the DR she merely said she was "A little bit scared"... and she had to think about that because BB were almost pressing her to say it.

I could go on!

The threat was all part of the playfight and Hazel knows that even if you don't.

Which is why charges are unlikely to be brought and unlikely to stick even if brought.

It started as a playfight,and then Daley went to far!! Most people know that,even if you don't!!:joker:
If someone threatens to hit me,and in a fit of bravado I say "Go for it",and they then hit me,that is still assault!?! I didn't need to go to Uni to know that!!!:devil:

[CaudleHalbard]

Any rookie lawyer could get Daley off a charge of common assault. Had Hazel been injured, it would have been more difficult.

I know there is a desire to pigeon-hole Hazel as a poor abused woman, but she isn't. I can't believe how deluded some people are about this! Save your sympathy for those women who, because of economic circumstances are tied to men who beat them black and blue on a regular basis.

Since leaving the house what has Hazel said about Daley? That she "cannot totally rule out" a relationship with him in the future. Some 'abused woman' !!

[DanaC]

Who is talking about Hazel in those terms in here? I don't see it that way at all. She's not an 'abused woman'. That doesn't alter his guilt or lack of it.

[joeysteele]

Any rookie lawyer could get Daley off a charge of common assault. Had Hazel been injured, it would have been more difficult.

I know there is a desire to pigeon-hole Hazel as a poor abused woman, but she isn't. I can't believe how deluded some people are about this! Save your sympathy for those women who, because of economic circumstances are tied to men who beat them black and blue on a regular basis.

Since leaving the house what has Hazel said about Daley? That she "cannot totally rule out" a relationship with him in the future. Some 'abused woman' !!

Quite frankly your really bad attitude to Hazel and the whole incident is the thing hardest to understand.
Also the way you put down everyone else too as if they know nothing and you know it all!

[CaudleHalbard]

Quite frankly your really bad attitude to Hazel and the whole incident is the thing hardest to understand.
Also the way you put down everyone else too as if they know nothing and you know it all!

So give us your take then, Joey.

Do you think Daley has a 'consent' defence?

[Seanbon]

Any rookie lawyer could get Daley off a charge of common assault. Had Hazel been injured, it would have been more difficult.

I know there is a desire to pigeon-hole Hazel as a poor abused woman, but she isn't. I can't believe how deluded some people are about this! Save your sympathy for those women who, because of economic circumstances are tied to men who beat them black and blue on a regular basis.

Since leaving the house what has Hazel said about Daley? That she "cannot totally rule out" a relationship with him in the future. Some 'abused woman' !!

As I stated before,neither will be charged,but to suggest that they are equally to blame is nonsense! Hazel is not an abused woman,because BB stepped in when they did,and what would have happened is pure speculation. However,as stated by others,if Daley is capable of this on a reality TV show,what could he do behind closed doors?? A warning from the police might help to avoid a future incident!!:nono:

[Seanbon]

So give us your take then, Joey.

Do you think Daley has a 'consent' defence?

Can't talk for Joey,but imo the answer is NO!!:conf:
She consented to the flirting. When he slapped her "arse" hard,she told him not to do that,which is a withdrawal of consent!?! QED!!:devil:

[joeysteele]

So give us your take then, Joey.

Do you think Daley has a 'consent' defence?

No I don't,I can see he could try it but I cannot see him winning with it,however I don't think it will get to court anyway.
In the unlikely event it were it too though, my guess is he would plead guilty anyway to some assault charge and would in fact be likely advised to do that too with the video evidence there is in existence.

Also my views on this incident are well documented in relevant threads on this throughout BB since the incident took place.
Of course not, as to a defence of consent though, she was alone with him,(despite the cameras), had she really fought against him, it could have been even worse for her, he not only laid his hands on her menacingly he verbally threatened her too.
All that would count heavily against him.

[CaudleHalbard]

Can't talk for Joey,but imo the answer is NO!!:conf:
She consented to the flirting. When he slapped her "arse" hard,she told him not to do that,which is a withdrawal of consent!?! QED!!:devil:

Sorry but her "Go for it" comment came AFTER the bum slap. So that doesn't work.

But, I am inclined to agree with you that the bum slap was the actual assault/battery.

Anyway let's see what hotshot lawyer-to-be Joey has to say. I do not claim to know it all and I am genuinely interested to hear his comments. :)

[joeysteele]

Sorry but her "Go for it" comment came AFTER the bum slap. So that doesn't work.

But, I am inclined to agree with you that the bum slap was the actual assault/battery.

Anyway let's see what hotshot lawyer-to-be Joey has to say. I do not claim to know it all and I am genuinely interested to hear his comments. :)

I really think you need to cool your comments and stop being so offensive.
I am not a hot shot lawyer-to-be at all.

Although currently cnnected to a firm of Lawyers I have yet to decide whether I make Law my career or Politics which I also studied at Uni.

[Seanbon]

Sorry but her "Go for it" comment came AFTER the bum slap. So that doesn't work.

But, I am inclined to agree with you that the bum slap was the actual assault/battery.

Anyway let's see what hotshot lawyer-to-be Joey has to say. I do not claim to know it all and I am genuinely interested to hear his comments. :)

As stated before,the "Go for it" comment can be explained as bravado,and is not consent to be assaulted!
Also abusing posters is not on,cool it!!:nono:

[CaudleHalbard]

[/B]

I really think you need to cool your comments and stop being so offensive.
I am not a hot shot lawyer-to-be at all.

Just a little leg-pull...... don't be over-sensitive! ;) If you ever do get involved in real law you'll get much stronger stuff thrown at you!

Anyway, do you agree that Daley is likely to have a good chance of using the 'consent' defence to get any common assault charge dismissed?

If not, it would be helpful to know why you think not.

[Pincho Paxton]

Just a little leg-pull...... don't be over-sensitive! ;) If you ever do get involved in real law you'll get much stronger stuff thrown at you!

Anyway, do you agree that Daley is likely to have a good chance of using the 'consent' defence to get any common assault charge dismissed?

If not, it would be helpful to know why you think not.

You already asked.. Joey already answered. A few posts up.

[Seanbon]

Just a little leg-pull...... don't be over-sensitive! ;) If you ever do get involved in real law you'll get much stronger stuff thrown at you!

Anyway, do you agree that Daley is likely to have a good chance of using the 'consent' defence to get any common assault charge dismissed?

If not, it would be helpful to know why you think not.

I know you're gunning for Joey,but Hazel did not consent to being assaulted,and that would be obvious to most people,therefore not a defence!!:conf:
Anyway,pure conjecture,it's not going to happen!!!:joker::joker:

[joeysteele]

Just a little leg-pull...... don't be over-sensitive! ;) If you ever do get involved in real law you'll get much stronger stuff thrown at you!

Anyway, do you agree that Daley is likely to have a good chance of using the 'consent' defence to get any common assault charge dismissed?

If not, it would be helpful to know why you think not.

Oh no, don't hide behind the leg pull one,I have dealt with a lot at Uni already and in life as to leg pulls and indeed I will have lots thrown at me which I will deal with appropriately at the time as I am now.

You are simply being really offensive and have been told you are too, not just from myself either.
You are also not listening to anything anyone says that disagrees with you while presenting your own distorted view of the law.

I answered you above, though lord knows why I am bothering,as to no he would not win the consent defence route in my view, he could try but I believe the video evidence and facts of the incident would have him in a corner which in his best interests he would likely be better admitting to some assault or in my view risk strongly losing the case by not doing so.

[Seanbon]

Oh no, don't hide behind the leg pull one,I have dealt with a lot at Uni already and in life as to leg pulls and indeed I will have lots thrown at me which I will deal with appropriately at the time as I am now.

You are simply being really offensive and have been told you are too, not just from myself either.
You are also not listening to anything anyone says that disagrees with you while presenting your own distorted view of the law.

I answered you above, though lord knows why I am bothering,as to no he would not win the consent defence route in my view, he could try but I believe the video evidence and facts of the incident would have him in a corner which in his best interests he would likely be better admitting to some assault or in my view risk strongly losing the case by not doing so.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

[courses]

I know there is a desire to pigeon-hole Hazel as a poor abused woman, but she isn't. I can't believe how deluded some people are about this! Save your sympathy for those women who, because of economic circumstances are tied to men who beat them black and blue on a regular basis.

No there isn't! Stop using that to try to make Hazel the villain. And it's ridiculous and offensive to suggest that anyone who IS abused must be a 'poor abused woman.' Being a victim of assault won't change your character and it hasn't changed Hazel's.

[CaudleHalbard]

I believe the video evidence and facts of the incident would have him in a corner which in his best interests he would likely be better admitting to some assault or in my view risk strongly losing the case by not doing so.

A straight answer at last! Thank you.... phew!

I believe the video evidence should actually form part of Daley's defence as it would show Hazel's activities and statements as well. I believe it would be very detrimental to the prosecution case, given the onus of proof is upon them, i.e. they have to prove lack of consent. It is not 'beyond reasonable doubt' that there was no consent.

We shall have to agree to disagree. :)

[My final word on this topic, as people seem to be getting unnecessarily wound up and taking things too personally.]

[Niamh.]

Who is talking about Hazel in those terms in here? I don't see it that way at all. She's not an 'abused woman'. That doesn't alter his guilt or lack of it.

Exactly. Really this probably has nothing at all to do with Hazel. I seriously doubt she's the one pursuing these charge (if it's even true)

[Niamh.]

No there isn't! Stop using that to try to make Hazel the villain. And it's ridiculous and offensive to suggest that anyone who IS abused must be a 'poor abused woman.' Being a victim of assault won't change your character and it hasn't changed Hazel's.

ikr? It was almost as if, because Hazel wasn't a jibbering mess afterwards then what Daley did was ok

[Marmalite]

She was goading him and then pulled his pants down. Not exactly blameless.


How very wrong you are and I hope you never find yourself in the situation that Hazel was in.

There is NEVER under any circumstances the right for ANYONE no matter who they are or what they are to grab a woman around the throat and threaten to hit them if they do not do as they say.

What Hazel did to Daley did NOT give him the right to be verbally and physically abusive to her. She did not goad him as you like to say, what she did, she did thinking that they were having a bit of a laugh.

In my opinion Daley should have been removed from the house immediately and not allowed back into the same room to be alone with Hazel. Unfortunately they didn't and this led to many people brushing off Daley's obvious abuse and lack of control and many people like you assuming she only had herself to blame.

[Vanessa]

How very wrong you are and I hope you never find yourself in the situation that Hazel was in.

There is NEVER under any circumstances the right for ANYONE no matter who they are or what they are to grab a woman around the throat and threaten to hit them if they do not do as they say.

What Hazel did to Daley did NOT give him the right to be verbally and physically abusive to her. She did not goad him as you like to say, what she did, she did thinking that they were having a bit of a laugh.

In my opinion Daley should have been removed from the house immediately and not allowed back into the same room to be alone with Hazel. Unfortunately they didn't and this led to many people brushing off Daley's obvious abuse and lack of control and many people like you assuming she only had herself to blame.

I didn't say that. Daley is to blame, but Hazel is not without fault.

[Marmalite]

I didn't say that. Daley is to blame, but Hazel is not without fault.


Why exactly?

[Vanessa]

Why exactly?

Because she was goading Daley and that was wrong. Having said that it was assault and there's no denying that.

[Marmalite]

Because she was goading Daley and that was wrong. Having said that it was assault and there's no denying that.


So let me get this straight.....

You think that by her having a laugh and flirt with a guy who appeared to be playing along (and had been the days leading up to that night) but then suddenly snapped in a split second, gave him the right to abuse her verbally and physically?

[Vanessa]

So let me get this straight.....

You think that by her having a laugh and flirt with a guy who appeared to be playing along (and had been the days leading up to that night) but then suddenly snapped in a split second, gave him the right to abuse her verbally and physically?

No, i didn't say that. The blame goes to Daley. I just didn't like her behaviour that night at all.

[Marmalite]

No, i didn't say that. The blame goes to Daley. I just didn't like her behaviour that night at all.



Yes you did. You said she was provoking him to verbally and physically assault her.


FYI that's what goading means.

[Vanessa]

Yes you did. You said she was provoking him to verbally and physically assault her.


FYI that's what goading means.

She was very drunk. No, i don't think she asked for it if that's what you mean.

[joeysteele]

Yes you did. You said she was provoking him to verbally and physically assault her.


FYI that's what goading means.

I wish you really good luck with your efforts there Marmalite.

They were both flirting after having drink, they are both responsible for the flirting, what though then transpired after the flirting was down to Daley alone, he was the one who turned sinister and not only used threatening behaviour but also threatening language too.

As you say let's hope that no one who is in any way blaming Hazel for Daley's sinister and aggressive change as to his behaviour find thmselves in such a position anytime to then also have people blaming them for it.

You are also spot on, that is exactly what goading means.
It is really sad that just because some took a dislike to Hazel,they could even hold her responsible for any of Daley's subsequent aggression.
That is ridiculous.

In fact after he became aggressive,I actually give Hazel great credit for the way she did handle it,I also believe myself, she really never likely believed he could possibly turn to be so aggressive and sinister either.

[anne666]

I wish you really good luck with your efforts there Marmalite.

They were both flirting after having drink, they are both responsible for the flirting, what though then transpired after the flirting was down to Daley alone, he was the one who turned sinister and not only used threatening behaviour but also threatening language too.

As you say let's hope that no one who is in any way blaming Hazel for Daley's sinister and aggressive change as to his behaviour find thmselves in such a position anytime to then also have people blaming them for it.

You are also spot on, that is exactly what goading means.
It is really sad that just because some took a dislike to Hazel,they could even hold her responsible for any of Daley's subsequent aggression.
That is ridiculous.

In fact after he became aggressive,I actually give Hazel great credit for the way she did handle it,I also believe myself, she really never likely believed he could possibly turn to be so aggressive and sinister either.

This

[Vanessa]

Agreed, but i stand by what i said. I did not like Hazel behaviour that night at all.

[Niamh.]

Agreed, but i stand by what i said. I did not like Hazel behaviour that night at all.

tbf though, Daley was the one who started it all by lying to her and swearing on his childs life that BB had rang to tell her she had to come in the house. I mean if he wanted to go to sleep why drag her inside? Why not ...............just go to sleep? Hazel clearly didn't want to go to sleep, she was outside talking Charlie when Daley forced her to come in and then he wants to force her to sleep as well? It was very very weird behaviour, hazel was not at fault

[Vanessa]

tbf though, Daley was the one who started it all by lying to her and swearing on his childs life that BB had rang to tell her she had to come in the house. I mean if he wanted to go to sleep why drag her inside? Why not ...............just go to sleep? Hazel clearly didn't want to go to sleep, she was outside talking Charlie when Daley forced her to come in and then he wants to force her to sleep as well? It was very very weird behaviour, hazel was not at fault

Agree. They were both very drunk and i found the whole thing uncomfortable to watch. Daley is just so weird! :eek::eek::eek:

[MeMyselfAndI]

Daley was completely in the wrong for his actions, But Hazel still acted disgustingly like usual

[Vanessa]

Daley was completely in the wrong for his actions, But Hazel still acted disgustingly like usual

That's the point i was trying to make. The whole thing was very odd. :shocked:

[anne666]

Agree. They were both very drunk and i found the whole thing uncomfortable to watch. Daley is just so weird! :eek::eek::eek:

BB should never have allowed Hazel to go into the room, dereliction of their duty to keep her safe. IMO. He was clearly in a drunken demented rage.I was shocked they didn't step in then.

[Niamh.]

BB should never have allowed Hazel to go into the room, dereliction of their duty to keep her safe. IMO. He was clearly in a drunken demented rage.I was shocked they didn't step in then.

Yeah definitely. Did you watch that interview with her someone posted earlier. She said as well that she didn't go straight back into the house afterwards either

[Vanessa]

BB should never have allowed Hazel to go into the room, dereliction of their duty to keep her safe. IMO. He was clearly in a drunken demented rage.I was shocked they didn't step in then.

Yes. They should have stepped in earlier. Daley gets violent when drunk. :shocked:

[Marmalite]

I know there is a desire to pigeon-hole Hazel as a poor abused woman, but she isn't. I can't believe how deluded some people are about this! Save your sympathy for those women who, because of economic circumstances are tied to men who beat them black and blue on a regular basis.


Your attitude towards people, especially women, who have been assaulted and abused is disgusting and is exactly why the world has such a problem with domestic abuse in this day and age!

Just because a woman is strong, independent, attractive and knows what she wants in life and knows how to get it, does not give anyone the right to look down on her and point fingers and lay the blame on her when abuse or assault raises it's ugly head.

How very stereotypical and ignorant of you to blame the economy and use it as an excuse as to why men think it's their god given right to threaten and beat a woman into submission because they fail to bow down and submit to them!

You say "save your sympathy" what a joke! You have zero sympathy for those that deserve it, in fact in my opinion you are the one who is deluded!

[joeysteele]

Your attitude towards people, especially women, who have been assaulted and abused is disgusting and is exactly why the world has such a problem with domestic abuse in this day and age!

Just because a woman is strong, independent, attractive and knows what she wants in life and knows how to get it, does not give anyone the right to look down on her and point fingers and lay the blame on her when abuse or assault raises it's ugly head.

How very stereotypical and ignorant of you to blame the economy and use it as an excuse as to why men think it's their god given right to threaten and beat a woman into submission because they fail to bow down and submit to them!

You say "save your sympathy" what a joke! You have zero sympathy for those that deserve it, in fact in my opinion you are the one who is deluded!

Really well said Marmalite, I totally agree again.

[courses]

Thought this article might be interesting.
"It is because society tells us that women are objects, not subjects, that when society is presented with a case of male violence or sexual abuse, everyone looks at it from his point of view: “Oh, he must have been provoked to have done that,” “He was a nice man who just snapped,” “He must have been confused by her signals,” “Maybe he’s been falsely accused, how terrible to have to go to jail for that.” With every victim-blaming, rape / violence apologist comment, society reveals through whose eyes it looks, and the answer is invariably the man’s."

cratesandribbons.com/2013/06/08/the-objectification-of-women-it-goes-much-further-than-sexy-pictures/

[Vanessa]

Thought this article might be interesting.
"It is because society tells us that women are objects, not subjects, that when society is presented with a case of male violence or sexual abuse, everyone looks at it from his point of view: “Oh, he must have been provoked to have done that,” “He was a nice man who just snapped,” “He must have been confused by her signals,” “Maybe he’s been falsely accused, how terrible to have to go to jail for that.” With every victim-blaming, rape / violence apologist comment, society reveals through whose eyes it looks, and the answer is invariably the man’s."

cratesandribbons.com/2013/06/08/the-objectification-of-women-it-goes-much-further-than-sexy-pictures/

The evidence is clear in this case. Daley had his hands on Hazel throat. That's assault.

[Livia]

Your attitude towards people, especially women, who have been assaulted and abused is disgusting and is exactly why the world has such a problem with domestic abuse in this day and age!

Just because a woman is strong, independent, attractive and knows what she wants in life and knows how to get it, does not give anyone the right to look down on her and point fingers and lay the blame on her when abuse or assault raises it's ugly head.

How very stereotypical and ignorant of you to blame the economy and use it as an excuse as to why men think it's their god given right to threaten and beat a woman into submission because they fail to bow down and submit to them!

You say "save your sympathy" what a joke! You have zero sympathy for those that deserve it, in fact in my opinion you are the one who is deluded!

Have to join with joeysteele and flag this up as a great post.

[Livia]

Thought this article might be interesting.
"It is because society tells us that women are objects, not subjects, that when society is presented with a case of male violence or sexual abuse, everyone looks at it from his point of view: “Oh, he must have been provoked to have done that,” “He was a nice man who just snapped,” “He must have been confused by her signals,” “Maybe he’s been falsely accused, how terrible to have to go to jail for that.” With every victim-blaming, rape / violence apologist comment, society reveals through whose eyes it looks, and the answer is invariably the man’s."

cratesandribbons.com/2013/06/08/the-objectification-of-women-it-goes-much-further-than-sexy-pictures/

Very interesting and sadly true. Some great posts in here today.

[sassysocks]

Daley was completely in the wrong for his actions, But Hazel still acted disgustingly like usual

How exactly did Hazel act disgustingly? It is not a crime for women to flirt you know. She is young, attractive, confident and a free agent - she can basically do what she likes.

Quite frankly, I am sick of females coming down on other females for behaviour they have no problem with when carried out by male hms. That is what I find disgusting.

[DanaC]

Vanessa: in what way was her behaviour 'disgusting'?

[sassysocks]

Vanessa: in what way was her behaviour 'disgusting'?

It seems some women don't like others who are strong and confident enough to break outdated taboos and take the lead.

They would rather they remained in the background, quiet and demure, seen but not heard and living their lives pleasing men.

[DanaC]

Oh don't get me wrong: I didn't like the way Hazel conducted herself in the house during the first weeks. But not because she was being flirty. It's because she seemed to be being manipulative and using her sexuality as a tool for that purpose. I wouldn't like to see that from a woman or a bloke. And I don't see that kind of thing as being a strong, modern woman. All that stuff she was saying when she was telling him to 'be a man' over taking charge in the safe house at the start. And manner in which she tried reestablish his desire for her after he'd said he wanted to back off a bit (given some of what others had said to him about his girlfriend outside).

I think some of what she was doing during that time, sits well with a lot of what passes for 'strong liberated women' in the media these days and which is actually a major step back imo: women's supposed power over men because of their sexual appetites etc.

I didn't dislike it on the grounds of it being 'slutty' or on the grounds of her being a 'homewrecker'. Neither of those have any currency with me. She wasn't a homewrecker, he was. He's the one who claimed he didn't really even have a girlfirend. He's the one who chose to act when he had left a partner in the outside world, apparently waiting for him. She on the other hand was young free and single and under the impression he effectively was as well.

[anne666]

Your attitude towards people, especially women, who have been assaulted and abused is disgusting and is exactly why the world has such a problem with domestic abuse in this day and age!

Just because a woman is strong, independent, attractive and knows what she wants in life and knows how to get it, does not give anyone the right to look down on her and point fingers and lay the blame on her when abuse or assault raises it's ugly head.

How very stereotypical and ignorant of you to blame the economy and use it as an excuse as to why men think it's their god given right to threaten and beat a woman into submission because they fail to bow down and submit to them!

You say "save your sympathy" what a joke! You have zero sympathy for those that deserve it, in fact in my opinion you are the one who is deluded!

This, well said !

[waylander1973]

http://metro.co.uk/2013/08/23/big-brother-2013-star-hazel-osullivan-was-genuinely-afraid-when-daley-ojuederie-pounced-3935322/

Update on what hazel feels about it.

[rionablue]

My views for what they are worth are that Hazel definitely wont press charges and Im not sure if Daley can actually be charged if she doesnt. His ex wife came forward and said he was violent towards her, if this is true Daley definitely needs to be watched. He is the housemate that completely surprised me the most. For weeks he didnt show any kind of agression or male chauvinism and in one night he seemed to do a complete U turn and start mocking Hazel, telling her what she should and shouldnt do and threatening her. If he has done something like this in the past he needs to be cautioned. I genuinely thought he was a nice guy. How wrong was I??/

[Daffodil]

I thought he was revolting after the lone song/dance routine rubbing cream into his genitals and singing 'This is the way you cream your bum'. I am cringing as I write this. I was also alerted to his strangeness when he was pictured posing in the tree house with one tear rolling down his cheek.

[Brother Leon]

371724483176173568

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Has he been charged yet or will we get to the year 2020 and press will still be like Daley could still face charges for Hazel assault. :conf:

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

371724483176173568

ex wife beaters that joined the police force because they secretly enjoy murdering people:devil:

[CaudleHalbard]

Has he been charged yet or will we get to the year 2020 and press will still be like Daley could still face charges for Hazel assault. :conf:

He will never be charged. I would bet 50p on it! :p

[Marsh.]

3 police officers stopped him in the street? Really, well that makes it alright then.

:laugh2: Honestly, get a grip Daley.

That said, my first question to these officers would be did you watch the 2 minute edited highlight or the actual night unfold on live feed? :laugh: I'm pretty sure I can guess the answer.

My sister thought it was unfair until she watched the clips on youtube and she did a complete 180.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

He will never be charged. I would bet 50p on it! :p

Add 9,999.50 and we've got a bet. :D

But I agree he won't be charged.

[Marsh.]

Besides, the legal ramifications he faces or doesn't face has no bearing on the BB house which has its own rules of conduct. He broke them and was ejected accordingly.

[reece(:]

Daley is such an immature moron, he really needs to get a grip (not of a woman's neck).