Twitter Lashes Out at Prince Harry: Bitter, Delusional, Family-Trashing Halfwit

[caz]

I’m speaking as someone who doesn’t know what actually happened, that’s all. Without knowing the full extent of the evidence should we assume innocence or guilt or is it more reasonable to say that we simply don’t know? Andrew might well have been guilty and paid for her silence. Yes it’s an absolutely fair point that she might not have wanted to be exposed to the trauma of being accused of being a liar or having the prosecution attempt to paint her in a derogatory way. But as we simply don’t know the full details it also could be that she didn’t want any holes in her story to be exposed in court. How can we know which is true? I’m not making an assumption either way.

Whatever the alleged crime the accused and the accusers are always going to be portrayed as liars by the prosecution and the defence and yes this must be a horribly traumatic experience but is there an alternative? I don’t know enough about the law to know what’s allowed and what’s not when it comes to questioning a witness and what changes need to be made or can be made? I don’t have the answers especially in cases where it’s basically one persons word against another’s. Money and position certainly shouldn’t come into it though of course.

I would only make the point that Andrew need not have paid a cent if he had been innocent and nobody could have proved otherwise, in or out of court.

Who in their right mind would cough up all that hush money - or indeed any money - to a woman who had made up such a story? Why pay to make yourself look as guilty as sin, unless you have no choice?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Perhaps I’m just too resistant to this practice of people in general baring their souls in public? It all seems a bit Jeremy Kyle to me.

To be honest I’m not particularly interested in the story as it is and I suspect that it will fizzle out after some behind-the-scenes reconciliation. I certainly don’t favour Harry and Meghan but it’s not something I’m losing sleep over. I’m just deeply suspicious of people going straight to the Press.

I like the idea of him boring the Taliban to death. Now, if he could actually do that he’d be my hero.

Well at the time, Harry was widely considered to be a hero for doing his bit. Funny how things change and are quickly forgotten when one is out of favour with the media.

How do you know Harry went 'straight' to the Press, if his family aren't confirming or denying that he tried and failed to reach out to them in other ways?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

I'm speaking as someone who doesn't know what actually happened, that's all.

Yep. I just find it interesting that this argument is *usually* framed as: " I'm suspicious of an accuser who would take a pay-off rather than have their day in court, as opposed to: :I'm suspicious of someone who, if innocent would rather Pay someone off than have their day in court and clear their name". Surely, that cuts both ways, doesn't it?

I mean, why would they pay her off in the first place? But that's usually not how the argument goes. It's usually that men are given the benefit of the doubt of not wanting costly litigation and they just pay them off to spare themselves while the greedy woman was only doing it for the money and got what she was after. Interesting double standard there.

[Ally]

LOL... I see Caz beat me to it.

[kwanitaka]

Ally, shut up you fool.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well at the time, Harry was widely considered to be a hero for doing his bit. Funny how things change and are quickly forgotten when one is out of favour with the media.

How do you know Harry went 'straight' to the Press, if his family aren't confirming or denying that he tried and failed to reach out to them in other ways?

Love,

Caz
X

Ok Caz, I’ll re-phrase it. I’m suspicious of anyone who chooses to air their private family issues via the Press.

[kwanitaka]

So speaks someone who has never once in their life been put in a position of having been sexually abused by someone and then in order to prove you were assaulted have to have your entire sexual life and history raked over in court to prove you were "pure enough" to have been assaulted. I can 100 percent completely understand how someone can think that they want to pursue something in court, and who, when they sit down for their first deposition and get asked by the opposing counsel, "So you say he forced you to perform oral sex, have you ever consented to giving a man oral sex?" "How many times, how many men"?, "Have you ever consented to anal"? And being forced to answer intrusive questions about your sexual history, I can absolutely 100 percent see that person saying, **** this, this is it's like being assaulted all over again, it's not worth it, and saying, "Give me the check". If of course they were lucky enough to be assaulted by someone with the coin. And if they weren't, just giving up and going home.

Trials re-victimize the victims repeatedly.

Ally, you are stupid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yep. I just find it interesting that this argument is *usually* framed as: " I'm suspicious of an accuser who would take a pay-off rather than have their day in court, as opposed to: :I'm suspicious of someone who, if innocent would rather Pay someone off than have their day in court and clear their name". Surely, that cuts both ways, doesn't it?

I mean, why would they pay her off in the first place? But that's usually not how the argument goes. It's usually that men are given the benefit of the doubt of not wanting costly litigation and they just pay them off to spare themselves while the greedy woman was only doing it for the money and got what she was after. Interesting double standard there.

It wasn’t my intention to favour either side as I don’t know all of the facts and none of us know what went on behind the scenes. Andrew could very well have been absolutely guilty as accused the only point that I was trying to make was that in the absence of certainty we are left with possibilities. A guilty Andrew paying to make this go away and the girl decided to avoid the distress of a court appearance or that Andrew was innocent and the girl suspected that holes in her version of events might have been exposed and Andrew wanted to avoid a court appearance.

I don’t know which of these are nearer the truth and I have nothing to go on to favour either side.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would only make the point that Andrew need not have paid a cent if he had been innocent and nobody could have proved otherwise, in or out of court.

Who in their right mind would cough up all that hush money - or indeed any money - to a woman who had made up such a story? Why pay to make yourself look as guilty as sin, unless you have no choice?

Love,

Caz
X

And that’s a very fair point Caz. But perhaps, and I’m saying no more than perhaps, what if Andrew had been advised that if he went to trial the prosecution would raise points that might not be conclusively damning but might lead the public to assume a ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ opinion? I don’t know. Paying someone off does look suspicious though and the RF didn’t exactly wholeheartedly back him.

[Ally]

Ally, you are stupid.

Oh, really? Do tell me, how you think that I am stupid, and then let me have fun demonstrating all the many and varied ways in which you are incorrect.

[caz]

Ok Caz, I’ll re-phrase it. I’m suspicious of anyone who chooses to air their private family issues via the Press.

But what exactly are you 'suspicious' about, in Harry's case?

That he has committed some kind of crime, and is giving all his book money to charity to make people think he has nothing to hide?

Well that's going well, isn't it?

How about being suspicious about Andrew, for paying off that woman and making most people think he does have something to hide?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I don’t know which of these are nearer the truth and I have nothing to go on to favour either side.

A bit like PC Marriott when all the lavatories were stolen from under his nose, so Eddowes had to take a dump in her pinny.

Trevor had nothing to go on either.

Oh, I'm enjoying myself today. I hope Ally lets kwanitaka stay a while longer. I'd pay for tickets.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And that’s a very fair point Caz. But perhaps, and I’m saying no more than perhaps, what if Andrew had been advised that if he went to trial the prosecution would raise points that might not be conclusively damning but might lead the public to assume a ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ opinion? I don’t know. Paying someone off does look suspicious though and the RF didn’t exactly wholeheartedly back him.

The public already assumed there was no smoke without fire, when the inbred dipstick claimed on tv that he was unable to sweat so it couldn't have been him. He went to the media and paid the price.

Paying off his accuser only fanned the flames in most people's minds.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Ally, shut up you fool.

Pretty please, tell Caz to shut up you fool too.

[caz]

Ally, you are stupid.

Why am I being left out?

I want to be called stupid too.

If you don't, I'm going up the garden to eat worms.