Justin Lee Collins - guilty as charged

mike65

and he gets off very lightly

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19869630

sounds like a total scum-bag I have to say. be interesting to see if (and for how long) his tv work dries up for.

furiousox

good times

NegativeCreep

Sure he hasn't been on telly in years anyway. I still think he's a funny person :P

stefan idiot jones

Could be worse, could be Jimmy Saville !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ChopShop

Was indifferent to him before, but recent coverage has made him look most un-likeable.

Canis Lupus

I personally loved the bit where he insisted she sleep facing him What a nutjob.

charlemont

What a scumbag..

mr.jingle

I'd say Justin Lee Collins is secretly happy with the recent searchings into his personal life as it is the most i've seen him on tv in years, if not ever!

ChopShop

Coming soon: Bring back Justin Lee Collins.

BuffyBot

Wasn't a fan before, and if this keeps him off TV, all the better. Awful guy.

JP Liz V1

wernstrom! wrote: »

Coming soon: Bring back Justin Lee Collins.

Channel 5 or ITV 2 reality show waiting to happen

Deise Vu

I never found the guy particularly funny. His schtick is a west country accent, being tubbly and hairy who doesn't mind looking ridiculous and that's about it really. I have to say though that I find this case more than a bit strange. It's not like she was married with kids to worry about and was financially dependant on him. When it was obvious he was barking mad, why didn't she just dump him and go back to wherever she was living the previous month or two?

old hippy

Guess y'all missed his programme about Japan on C5 last year? It was ok, if it bit cliched - how quirky these foreigners are etc...

http://www.channel5.com/shows/justin-lee-collins-turning-japanese

Merch

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I personally loved the bit where he insisted she sleep facing him What a nutjob.

Not a great fan of the guy, but not much worse than whatever else is out there, not sure I understand the revulsion of him (other than these reports if they are accurate)
The above makes it sound a bit odd, as if its not completely true, maybe it is but we dont know.
but in practice it'd be impossible to request/prove? what'd he do, wake her up in the middle of the night to get her to turn back to him if he found her lying on her back or away from him?
If it is completely accurate I'd question her judgement, as soon as the quirky behaviour turned to nutty, why didnt she just bail out? and how was she living with him so soon after meeting before finding out if he was not nuts? or was it that he was well known that drew her in?

As for closing her accounts and probably giving passwords to let him access it, sounds like she was a bit stupid.

MagicMarker

Merch wrote: »

Not a great fan of the guy, but not much worse than whatever else is out there, not sure I understand the revulsion of him (other than these reports if they are accurate)
The above makes it sound a bit odd, as if its not completely true, maybe it is but we dont know.
but in practice it'd be impossible to request? what'd he do, wake her up in the middle of the night to get her to turn back to him if he found her lying on her back or away from him?
If it is completely accurate I'd question her judgement, as soon as the quirky behaviour turned to nutty, why didnt she just bail out? and how was she living with him so soon after meeting before finding out if he was not nuts? or was it that he was well known that drew her in?

As for closing her accounts and probably giving passwords to let him access it, sounds like she was a bit stupid.

Yep, it's all her fault. :rolleyes:

Merch

MagicMarker wrote: »

Yep, it's all her fault. :rolleyes:

will you go away with your rolls eyes,
Im saying she must have been a bit thick if there really was a problem and didnt get out of there.

As I would suggest of any man if they allowed someone to manipulate them or close their accounts, and allowed such a thing to persist.
Assuming that its all accurate.

Chocoholic84

Merch wrote: »

If it is completely accurate I'd question her judgement, as soon as the quirky behaviour turned to nutty, why didnt she just bail out? and how was she living with him so soon after meeting before finding out if he was not nuts? or was it that he was well known that drew her in?

As for closing her accounts and probably giving passwords to let him access it, sounds like she was a bit stupid.

+ 1. Seriously, why would she stay?

Dozen Wicked Words

If someone gets degraded enough, don't they then feel its all their fault, that the problem lies with them. That is maybe one of the reasons why people abused like she apparently was, choose to stay with their abuser. i think it might be a bit harsh to consider her culpable at all really.

/psychology obtained from Television programmes

Deise Vu

dooferoaks wrote: »

If someone gets degraded enough, don't they then feel its all their fault, that the problem lies with them. That is maybe one of the reasons why people abused like she apparently was, choose to stay with their abuser. i think it might be a bit harsh to consider her culpable at all really.

/psychology obtained from Television programmes

I'm not trying to be smart here but isn't it clear that Justin Collins is also psychologically disturbed with serious low esteem issues (if we are to believe her side of the story). So two loopers with a mutually suitable psychosis (dominance / submission) meet each other and break up after 6 months of a terrible relationship. How is that worthy of court time and why is one a guilty and the other an innocent party?

This is a genuine question. It seems to me it is PC disappearing up its own rear end. The only reason he is the guilty party is because he is (sort of) famous and, worse, a man.

MagicMarker

Deise Vu wrote: »

I'm not trying to be smart here but isn't it clear that Justin Collins is also psychologically disturbed with serious low esteem issues (if we are to believe her side of the story). So two loopers with a mutually suitable psychosis (dominance / submission) meet each other and break up after 6 months of a terrible relationship. How is that worthy of court time and why is one a guilty and the other an innocent party?

This is a genuine question. It seems to me it is PC disappearing up its own rear end. The only reason he is the guilty party is because he is (sort of) famous and, worse, a man.

What in the name of christ are you on about? He's guilty because he's the one who subjected her to domestic violence. HE'S the one who threatended to kill HER.

Un-fúckin-believable.

Deise Vu

MagicMarker wrote: »

What in the name of christ are you on about? He's guilty because he's the one who subjected her to domestic violence. HE'S the one who threatended to kill HER.

Un-fúckin-believable.

As far as I am aware (I haven't followed the case in detail) he didn't strike her or there would have been more serious charges. His behaviour per the headlines was bizarre in the extreme but I do not understand why a grown woman couldn't figure out where the door was. He was a looper, he wanted to control her life and she let him for a short while. Big deal.

old hippy

Deise Vu wrote: »

As far as I am aware (I haven't followed the case in detail) he didn't strike her or there would have been more serious charges. His behaviour per the headlines was bizarre in the extreme but I do not understand why a grown woman couldn't figure out where the door was. He was a looper, he wanted to control her life and she let him for a short while. Big deal.

As someone who once suffered from an abusive relationship, it's not always as cut and dried as you seem to be saying.

And then there are always the scars afterwards, not always easy to get over.

Deise Vu

old hippy wrote: »

As someone who once suffered from an abusive relationship, it's not always as cut and dried as you seem to be saying.

And then there are always the scars afterwards, not always easy to get over.

I'm not talking about any situation other than Justin Collins and whatshername. There were no kids, there was no violence, some of his behavior was crazy but then he is a comedian and not a particularly good comedian at that. Maybe some of the stuff was meant to be funny??

As I posted earlier, I could understand if there were kids or she was financially dependant on him or his behaviour escalated after years but she is a mature woman who only knew him months. If everyone who is diappointed how a relationship turns out goes to the cops we better start recruiting cops in this country again.

fatmammycat

Deise Vu wrote: »

I'm not talking about any situation other than Justin Collins and whatshername. There were no kids, there was no violence, some of his behavior was crazy but then he is a comedian and not a particularly good comedian at that. Maybe some of the stuff was meant to be funny??

As I posted earlier, I could understand if there were kids or she was financially dependant on him or his behaviour escalated after years but she is a mature woman who only knew him months. If everyone who is diappointed how a relationship turns out goes to the cops we better start recruiting cops in this country again.

He struck her a number of times and admitted it in court, claiming it was 'to calm her'.

Deise Vu

fatmammycat wrote: »

He struck her a number of times and admitted it in court, claiming it was 'to calm her'.

In that case he should have been given a jail sentence. I stand corrected.

MagicMarker

Deise Vu wrote: »

In that case he should have been given a jail sentence. I stand corrected.

Why do you stand corrected? What's changed? She's still an adult? There were still no kids involved. Why couldn't she have just "figured out where the door was". After all, "he wanted to control her life and she let him for a short while. Big deal".

Why do you say "big deal" when it's "just" psychological abuse, but if he gives her a slap it's "oh well then throw him in prison". Do you have any idea how damaging psychological abuse can be?

ChopShop

Keep it civil folks.

Merch

fatmammycat wrote: »

He struck her a number of times and admitted it in court, claiming it was 'to calm her'.

Thats the first thats been mentioned, well if she departed at that time then fine, if she stayed after that I hold out that she was an idiot.

Merch

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why do you stand corrected? What's changed? She's still an adult? There were still no kids involved. Why couldn't she have just "figured out where the door was". After all, "he wanted to control her life and she let him for a short while. Big deal".

Why do you say "big deal" when it's "just" psychological abuse, but if he gives her a slap it's "oh well then throw him in prison". Do you have any idea how damaging psychological abuse can be?

whats changed, well if someone said, oi he only gave her a slap to shut her up, it looks like you'd flip (rightly) but
When they acknowledge, well he hit her, thats a definite no, you're up in arms saying, whats different, no one said psychological abuse isnt wrong/harmful, but this thread is about JLC and someone that went out for a very brief period of time.
If he hit her, whats different well thats the different bit! wasnt mentioned before, we can presume she got out of there after that?

fatmammycat

Merch wrote: »

whats changed, well if someone said, oi he only gave her a slap to shut her up, it looks like you'd flip (rightly) but
When they acknowledge, well he hit her, thats a definite no, you're up in arms saying, whats different, no one said psychological abuse isnt wrong/harmful, but this thread is about JLC and someone that went out for a very brief period of time.
If he hit her, whats different well thats the different bit! wasnt mentioned before, we can presume she got out of there after that?

It's mentioned in a number of newspapers, I don't really get what point you're tyring to make. She was the victim of domestic abuse. The court ruled thusly. What other point is there?

MagicMarker

Merch wrote: »

whats changed, well if someone said, oi he only gave her a slap to shut her up, it looks like you'd flip (rightly) but
When they acknowledge, well he hit her, thats a definite no, you're up in arms saying, whats different, no one said psychological abuse isnt wrong/harmful, but this thread is about JLC and someone that went out for a very brief period of time.
If he hit her, whats different well thats the different bit! wasnt mentioned before, we can presume she got out of there after that?

You could have fooled me, we have Deise Vu's post about how JLC is only guilty because "he is (sort of) famous and, worse, a man." Practically dismissing the story out of hand, simply because he was under the impression that there was no physical abuse.

Not to mention your own first foray into the thread, where you seem to have more of an issue with her, than with him.

So no, maybe no one said outright that psychological abuse isn't bad, but you guys sure are good at being completely dismissive of it. As if it's not much of an issue comparable to physical abuse. Both, fyi, are "a definite no".