Jay Blades charged with with coercive and controlling behaviour against his ex wife

Some of these comments have simply astounded me. Do all the nay-sayers know this man, know his wife?

And what on earth difference does it make where he came/comes from!!!?

I don’t know him, or his wife, but I do know it often takes 2 to tango. Taking against the man because of how he looks is extraordinary.

Ilovedogs22

Yes, yes me 2 ladies! His eyes are 2 close together, yes, yes they really are. Always thought he had a vibe about him but not in a good way either. 😕

Of course he has 2 eyes.
And as for their position on his face- how can you tell behind the big glasses.
So never mind a trial or court hearing, let’s just measure the distance between them.
And for those who claim There’s no smoke without fire 1) there often is and 2) how much mud sticks to innocent people if enough is thrown?

Mollygo

Rosie51

I don't know why we bother with court cases, the arena of trial by popular opinion should always suffice.

I’m trying to remember who it was said that you should be careful what you say before a case comes to trial.

Contempt of Court Act 1981,
section 1, strict liability rule,
re publishing prejudicial material.
this includes the authors of such material,
which in this case would be the individual posters.
not bothered by the risk of imprisonment, obviously.

For crying out loud *Ilovedogs’ his eyes too close together !! What planet are you living on

The thing is the old gossips tend to be pretty spot on with regard to the safeguarding of women and children.

BigBopper

There is no smoke without fire.

Dreadful expression, I have heard it said a few times and innocent people have been hurt by it. An old gossips phrase.

I dint know if he's guilty or not, I quite like him, but I was taken in by Huw Edwards.

Rosie51

I don't know why we bother with court cases, the arena of trial by popular opinion should always suffice.

I’m trying to remember who it was said that you should be careful what you say before a case comes to trial.

Yes, yes me 2 ladies! His eyes are 2 close together, yes, yes they really are. Always thought he had a vibe about him but not in a good way either. 😕

According to Lawyer Monthly the court documents name physical and emotional abuse.

Best wait until the trial. 🙂

Bridie22

Is not one count of coercive behaviour enough?

Of course it is IF he is found guilty by a jury adhering to the oath they will each be swearing. You appear not to need to hear the actual evidence before convicting him.
I can see the BBC would feel obliged to suspend him, but I think sacking him could prejudice a fair trial. It gives the impression they have found him guilty, which he may well be, but I prefer the jury to make that decision.

Is not one count of coercive behaviour enough?

Not all of Hackney has E post codes. The part of Hackney he lived in was Stoke Newington, which is N16 and is far from the East End, have a look on a map - just saying!

Blades and his wife have been married for less than two years but it seems as though her accusation of one count of coercive behaviour has been sufficient to wreck his career.
I don't understand the reference to 'obtain a log'. Does this mean a record of behaviour?

Irrespective of marital problems, I took agin him watching him 'paw' the King (then PC) on that renovation programme. So creepy.

Cadenza123

I think that it's generally accepted that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Hear, hear. Well said. Gransnet is not a jury and doesn't have any evidence.

I would support a change to the law so that people are not named before being found guilty. He could have been quietly dropped from the schedules until the case came to court.

But (and it’s a big ‘but’) given the way Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and others got away with abuse for decades, and the BBC was (rightly) hauled over the coals for not acting more quickly and not taking notice of victims, I can see why he’s been sacked.

What would people rather see happen? Keep him in post and risk another scandal? Given that rich celebrities can pay for very expensive legal representation it is likely that by the time the accusations hit the fan all defence avenues have been thoroughly explored. There have been rumours for years about the behaviour of some very high profile celebrities, and the consensus is that this won’t come to light until they die because their legal teams have everything sewn up. They continue to work, and the media continue to treat them as treasures. It’s not true that people are fired because one wrong word has been said against them.

I’m sure the BBC will have tried very hard to keep him - his programmes are popular and his image is wholesome - but Huw Edwards, Phillip Schofield, Jermaine Jenas etc etc all had ‘good guy’ images too, and the tv companies were roundly criticised for maintaining those images in the face of evidence to the contrary.

He has resigned from his post as chancellor of a university, too. The same applies to that, IMO.

lemsip

since the new law bought in against coercive behaviour and several cases bought before the courts in recent weeks, I wonder why you wouldn't just walk away from the relationship? unless you are seriously under threat of course. It seems that some stay until they have a log!
just saying!

Well, many women partners are literally trapped financially. And the perpetrator partner knows it.

Lemsip... rude and not necessary.

Jay Blades has always claimed to come from Hackney, which I believe to be in the East End of London. He also lives in Claverley, which is not in Wolverhampton, West Midlands as stated in the DT, but is a nearby village in Shropshire, a different county. Inaccurate reporting.
before the BBC reports on it and suspends a high profile presenter they will know the accusations are true.
That could possibly be libellous. Last week an account claimed Amanda Abbington was incandescent with rage because the BBC findings, as yet unpublished, were a whitewash.
Both unproven at present.

Bridie22

Wow Lemsip... you obviously have been very fortunate in your life, suggesting women stay in abusive relationships to obtain a log???!!
It isn't that easy to walk away.

So sorry for your inabilty to interpretate what I meant in my 'just saying, for discussion

Wow Lemsip... you obviously have been very fortunate in your life, suggesting women stay in abusive relationships to obtain a log???!!
It isn't that easy to walk away.

since the new law bought in against coercive behaviour and several cases bought before the courts in recent weeks, I wonder why you wouldn't just walk away from the relationship? unless you are seriously under threat of course. It seems that some stay until they have a log!
just saying!

Fine GG13, he obviously has some good points as everybody does.