Respectfully, also.

If this is a kangaroo court, they are by their own hand, the kangaroo defendants and kangaroo witnesses.

Nobody forced them to print their statements in the other place. They did so as Mr Boddington points out, to protect their public image in advance of any potential adverse comment.

I find it inconceivable that anybody who works in the media could not have predicted that those statements would be examined and commented on.

Is anybody seriously suggesting that we just take the statement of the PH at face value. I do not know the man, he may very well be telling the truth as he saw it.

However as PH's have a history of protecting their clients, ranging from their sexual preferences, to their mistresses that arrive a day later, to their drinking, lack of ability, canned hunts etc etc, why in the name of all that is holy, does anybody think that anybody else has to believe him.

If the principle participants are being judged now then it is exactly because of the PR spin that has been attempted.

A simple statement of

"I want people to know before the rumour mill starts, that I fucked up and hurt a man terribly. I will do my best to make amends to him for this terrible accident"

Would have earned the girl in question a lot of brownie points.

The PR exercise and well off people begging for money, is IMO shameful.

Regards