Ulrika

I'm tempted to relate the story of the man who is still a big TV star who tried to sexually assault my ex-wife, way back in the '70s. He was drunk and drove off afterwards, so she called the police with his registration number to tip them off that he was drunk - he lost his license. Since she couldn't have proved he grabbed her and shoved her up against a wall and started groping, this was the best revenge she could get. The revelation that this racist, sexist comedian (who presents a very long-running Saturday game show, participants being pairs of family members of different generations) would behave this way won't surprise many, I suspect.

Sorry for any confusion

My sister has been raped and I also have a couple of female friends who've suffered similar.
How Ulrika can sit there on national telly and talk about that issue without breaking up yet claim she doesn't have the stones to confront the shitheel who assaulted her is truly incredible.
And I mean that in the legalistic sense -- 'in-credible'. Not fucking credible. She wrote about it in her book but didn't name names because she was advised not to for legal reasons. Or because there was no money in it(?).

She admitted to knowing he had committed the same offence with several other (less famous?) women yet all she could find in that was a sense of cheer because she realised it wasn't an hallucination.

It's a strange world we live in.

A nice little whispering campaign though ought to do the job - since most people will know who it is by the end of the week.

She's only human but it's most upsetting to hear that nothing has been/will be done. Sickening.
I can't accept an "but he knows we know and that'll discourage him" approach.

Or perhaps I'm just being naive? Dunno.

Of course the fact that she doesn't really mind the facts of her sex life being dragged through the Daily Mail does seem to remove that line of argument a touch.

Not that her sexual history should matter anyway but it's a jury system and will as they're as prone to hypocrisy as any stratum of society.

I thought L*s D*nnis did that programme. Am I out of the loop?

She is not a stupid woman after all, just quite an emotionally damaged one.

Maybe she'd get it in the neck for trying to do something about it (esp if it is many years after said event) but I have to say, hand on heart, if I were in the same position I happily fuck the career off to set the record straight.
I've not been sexually assaulted at work but I've lost a job for whistle blowing before and I'll do it again. should she be more afriad because she has more to lose? Depends on her conscience. I've already lost one job for doing so. Cutting off my nose to spite my face? Hero? Zero? Stupid?
Whatever. I can sleep easy at night knowing I did what I thought was right. That's all I'm trying to say. It's not right for everyone in every situation.

Depends on one's priorities, dunnit?

Peas.

There are many reasons why 9 out of 10 women do not report sexual assult, other than being worried about "fucking off" a career.

I don't know who either the woman or the man being referred to in this instance are - but I don't need to know in order to understand why she has might not have chosen to formally report it.

You're simplified interpretation of the issue shows that you don't actually understand it. Your attitude towards her realising 'it wasn't an hallucination' further indicates your lack of comprehension.

Anyone else know anything

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=1166132002

things may be worse than we feared.

I have very mixed feelings about all of this. UJ's reasons for not reporting the alleged rape in the first place are extremely plausible. I also assume media-insiders have good reasons for judging this man guilty. But his career and reputation are now destroyed without him ever having actually stood trial.

Meanwhile the appalling double-standards shown by sections of the press in reporting UJ's love life the last few weeks will only strengthen the reluctance of many women to report rape in the first place. Reminds me how backward and patriachal society still is in dealing with sexual violence.

Ulrika has the last word

Matthew Wright has inadvertently named the TV presenter at the centre of speculation about the identity of the man Ulrika Jonsson claims raped her.

He mentioned the name - which cannot be repeated for legal reasons - during his live show The Wright Stuff on Channel Five. But he quickly pointed out it had been a slip of the tongue and that he had not meant to do so.

Jonsson has claimed the man, who she has refused to identify, attacked her in a hotel room in 1988. She was a young TV weather presenter at the time.

The man has denied the claim, according to reports.

Wright's slip-up came during the newspaper review at the start of his daily show.

Later PR man Max Clifford took part in a debate on the show about trial by media. Clifford says he has been approached by other women who claim to have had encounters with the unidentified presenter.

Clifford also says he gave advice to the man earlier this week.

A spokeswoman for Five said: "It was never the intention of The Wright Stuff to name anyone in connection with this story."

Meanwhile, a third woman is reported to have made an official complaint to police about the man. The 30-year-old woman broke down as she watched the former weather girl describing her rape ordeal on Jonathan Ross's BBC1 show, the Daily Express reported today.

********************

did anyone see the show? I still think it's one of the Krankies.