Caroline Flack found dead

retro:electro wrote: »

Well obviously it’s not there because they’ve only quoted two lines of Ms Weiss’ statement. Other outlets have printed the full transcript. It’s up to you whether you want to believe it or not, think it was edited, misquoted, or whatever other kind of conspiracy you’re going to pull out of your hat. I quite frankly do not care. And I never linked to any The Sun articles, I linked to two reputable sites so I’m not sure why you felt it was necessary to mention that. It’s very disingenuous.

Hmm, one of which was The Telegraph, which you're now disagreeing with for some reason, and the other was The Irish Independent who didn't write their own copy.

Looking at Caroline’s Instagram- 99% of the pictures are just of her, dolled up for various events. Each photo is perfectly shot, as if by a photographer.

I know it was part of her brand/image, but living her life like that must have been exhausting on so many levels. That much self-promotion isn’t good for anyone’s mental health. I think there were several complicated factors at play here, it’s not right to lay the blame solely at the feet of the media, and certainly not the CPS.

retro:electro wrote: »

It’s quite baffling that you’d rather believe that all of these agencies misquoted her, but then again you’re also the same poster who was confused as to why the CPS would even pursue charges when evidence shows an assault took place.

You're an absolute liar. Show me the post. You're the same poster who has already gone back on something in this thread and now you're about to do it again. Anything I said earlier was limited to the allegation of the lamp you utter clown, not the attack itself. I'm fairly sure I even said something like the attack aspect was undeniable. Is this your tactic when you're not getting your own way? First call the other person bias and then lie about something they said. Very mature.

To save you about an hour, these are the only two posts where I even mentioned the acronym CPS. I never once criticised the decision to take it to trial.

Hammer89 wrote: »

We will. He's going to reveal it over the coming weeks and months. He's going to continue to deny the CPS version of events and the very sad thing is that it's still going to be perceived as a victim protecting the memory of his abuser by some people. People will believe what he said when he was drunk and hysterical, that she tried to kill him with a lamp - which is what he said during the 999 call - but they won't believe what he has to say when he's sober and of a sounder mind. They'll say what you've suggested, that he retracted the statement because of a stigma against male victims of domestic abuse, or that he's just struck by grief and doesn't want to speak ill of his deceased girlfriend.

Hammer89 wrote: »

That's the point. It won't take place - ever - so to continue to call her an 'abuser' who tried to 'cave' in her boyfriend's skull is monumentally wrong. She would've gotten away with it because the only witness denied CPS' version of events. That also ruins your 'she knew she was going down so she killed herself' angle. You also compared her to a man who killed three children. Your take on this is reprehensible in my view. Way too much exaggeration, sensationalist language - like 'abuser' - and confirmation bias and not enough compassion or balance.

pinkyeye wrote: »

Please please please people do not click on daily mail articles, it's only giving them what they want.

They will NEVER STOP this hounding of people until people stop clicking these ****ty links.

Ok I get it now why that poster earlier claimed my post was disrespectful when they quoted it. At least you give a reason which is entirely reasonable and justifiable to be fair.

With the greatest of respect though, and I truly mean this in the nicest and most sincere way possible - I won’t stop reading or linking to tabloid rags as though I hold them in any way responsible for contributing to the current social climate.

What happened is tragic, but there is as much of a causal link between the proliferation of tabloid rags and social ills, as there is between anything else one cares to try and link to social ills such as domestic violence and suicide.

Respectfully, “stop doing x because you’re contributing to y”, is driven by an agenda to sanitise society, as the vast majority of people are already capable of distinguishing between fiction and reality, in spite of what some people would want people to believe.

I don’t often bother to read the daily mail, because it’s shìte, not because I think it makes people do something they weren’t inclined towards already. I’ll continue to read it, and continue not making that giant leap to hold tabloid rags responsible for people’s shìtty attitudes and behaviours towards other people.

ToddDameron wrote: »

It's disturbing that some posters are doing their very best to either dismiss the possibility that Caroline Flack assaulted her boyfriend, or dismiss the incident as a trivial spat.

They’re as bad as the people defining her entire existence on that one incident and brushing off her suicide as something trivial & irrelevant, as if it’s something we shouldn’t be upset over because of her actions in the run up to it.
Or the ones trying to turn this into a gender war.

It’s not a black and white issue and anyone taking a hardline stance on either side, of making a martyr out of her or making out like she’s the devil incarnate needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

retro:electro wrote: »

I’ve no interest in engaging with someone who resorts to personal attacks when called out on something. Are you seriously suggesting we didn’t spend a good chunk of the day going back and forth over the logistics of the CPS charge?

I'm seriously suggesting if I said what you thought I said you would've posted the evidence pal, but we all make mistakes. I made one when I called you a clown and I do apologise. I'm not in the business of trying to hurt people's feelings. I don't mean that in a patronising way. Let's hope there's a lot more clarity on certain things to come out over the coming weeks and months.

Tork wrote: »

Can you explain why it's so important that he was awake rather than asleep when he sustained the head injury?

Because attacking somebody who isn't conscious, when their defences couldn't possibly be any lower, is a very callous thing to do.

0127647 wrote: »

Was it reported she was on his phone?

The argument broke out because someone either texted or phoned him, and she checked on his phone while he was asleep.

She saw a name-jumped to conclusions-and struck him with an object (which seems to be up for debate on this thread-I understood it was lamp, people are claiming it was a phone).

Edit: She checked on his phone when it went off. He was asleep when it beeped, she checked it-saw a name, jumped to conclusions.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I think it shows the psychology of Flack.

She attacked him while he was completely defenseless. Wasn't even a 'wake up and ask him who so-and-so is' kinda scenario.

That and she was snooping on his phone.

Wasn't this a first time offence at the age of 40? She had no history of violence or of being arrested. It sounds like this was completely out of character for her. She held down many TV presenting jobs for the last 15 years without any problems.

Strazdas wrote: »

Wasn't this a first time offence at the age of 40? She had no history of violence or of being arrested. It sounds like this was completely out of character for her. She held down many TV presenting jobs for the last 15 years without any problems.

She was previously engaged to someone else, Andrew Brady, and that ended. And after she got arrested, he sent out some message like 'the Truth always comes out'. He then followed it up with something like 'looks like my 2018 (when he was in a relationship with Flack) is looking like someone else's 2019'.

She had done this before, according to reports.
There wasn't really anything that I think could have been done. If she was going to do something drastic, she sounds like she would have done it sooner or later.