The British Monarchy

[BrianW]

I have a friend who happens to be Jewish.

She sometimes recounts the anti-Semitism she encounters. (She is in Australia, not here.) Very occasionally, I think she's a bit OTT, and what she is describing is not really anti-Semitic in intent.

But then I think - it's OK for me to believe that but I'm not Jewish and haven't lived her life. She is really a lot better placed to judge than I am. And if she feels hurt, it's real.

This is a very difficult and very sensitive area. But I think the key point is that it's quite easy to offend without the least intention of offending, and if the particular person is sensitive to what he or she perceives as racism, it may not take much. The nearest I can get as a white, working-class Anglo-Saxon bloke is that if I went to a gathering of upper-class types I would be a bit sensitive to anyone who started to take the piss out of my accent, my origins or whatever. And yeah, I know it ain't the same. But I might be a tad on the defensive.

(For the record, all the upper-class people I have met in my life have been really nice, but then I haven't met that many and at the end of the day, I'm white.)

 

[Brewster's millions]

Was watching a tv doc last week where 3 different coppers independently gave a word for word statement off an accused.

It was debunked in court as an expert said only a highly trained actor could hear a statement once and recall it word for word later in the day. Said its nigh on impossible and the odds of 3 doing it astronomical

Yeah, I think if you applied a normal, rational approach to this incident, the first thing you would question is the accuracy of the transcript that was produced by Fulani, given both its length and the detail provided.

Again, I don’t doubt that she was asked about her background and Hussey may well have been a bit blunt and direct in doing so, as a lot of upper crust sorts are. But the detail offered and the nuance and emphasis provided in the transcript - with each question becoming successively less subtle - suggests a lot of padding to me, and more than a hint of artistic licence at play.

Unless it was recorded - and again a recording would hint at an ulterior motive - it’s simply not realistic to believe that the transcript is an unbiased, 100% accurate account of what actually happened. It would be much more believable if she had merely complained about the questioning, rather the providing an extensive, word for word account of a conversation which clearly lasted some time.

When you add in the fact that she has a wholly manufactured, fake persona, and an obvious axe to grind given what she has previously said about the royal family, then you have to ask questions. Given the state of some of the comments on here, however, it appears that a lot if not the majority of people are happy to accept every single word and simply not question any of it, however illogical that is.

From Hussey’s perspective, sixty years of service to the Queen didn’t even allow her a fair hearing, or lead people to question what was actually said, or even consider how improbable it was for a person to remember a conversation of that length with such clarity.

 

[Brewster's millions]

It was debunked because the other person disputed it.

A pretty key detail that’s completely missing here.

Whether it was disputed or not is frankly irrelevant.

Expert opinion - offered in court - is that it’s very, very unlikely that a person can hear a statement once and be able to recall it word for word the following day. Let alone a prolonged conversation like the narrative offered by Fulani / Headley. Very, very unlikely.

 

[bluenova]

Yeah, I think if you applied a normal, rational approach to this incident, the first thing you would question is the accuracy of the transcript that was produced by Fulani, given both its length and the detail provided.

Again, I don’t doubt that she was asked about her background and Hussey may well have been a bit blunt and direct in doing so, as a lot of upper crust sorts are. But the detail offered and the nuance and emphasis provided in the transcript - with each question becoming successively less subtle - suggests a lot of padding to me, and more than a hint of artistic licence at play.

Unless it was recorded - and again a recording would hint at an ulterior motive - it’s simply not realistic to believe that the transcript is an unbiased, 100% accurate account of what actually happened. It would be much more believable if she had merely complained about the questioning, rather the providing an extensive, word for word account of a conversation which clearly lasted some time.

When you add in the fact that she has a wholly manufactured, fake persona, and an obvious axe to grind given what she has previously said about the royal family, then you have to ask questions. Given the state of some of the comments on here, however, it appears that a lot if not the majority of people are happy to accept every single word and simply not question any of it, however illogical that is.

From Hussey’s perspective, sixty years of service to the Queen didn’t even allow her a fair hearing, or lead people to question what was actually said, or even consider how improbable it was for a person to remember a conversation of that length with such clarity.

Perhaps the fact that they, and she, apologised straight away, and announced she was stepping down, suggests they know that it was likely to be true. If they genuinely believed she hadn't said it in that kind of manner, I am pretty sure they'd have said so, or at least thrown some doubt on to it.

I know what you mean about it being difficult to remember, and I doubt it's perfect, but frankly most of the questions were the same, and being able to remember the steps to go from "where" being your organisation, your location, your birthplace, your parents birthplace etc., is pretty logical and easy. The only different bits were right at the end, and those few final lines are the kind that you remember and repeat back easily.

 

[domalino]

Whether it was disputed or not is frankly irrelevant.

Expert opinion - offered in court - is that it’s very, very unlikely that a person can hear a statement once and be able to recall it word for word the following day. Let alone a prolonged conversation like the narrative offered by Fulani / Headley. Very, very unlikely.

No, the expert opinion was that 3 people wouldn’t produce the exact same transcript.

Again, no one involved is disputing the conversation happened as described. I’m not sure anyone is disputing it except you, presumably because you know it’s an absurd interrogation and your argument that Hussey did nothing wrong relies on Fulani lying about how the conversation went.

 

[Bluesince1979]

Perhaps the fact that they, and she, apologised straight away, and announced she was stepping down, suggests they know that it was likely to be true. If they genuinely believed she hadn't said it in that kind of manner, I am pretty sure they'd have said so, or at least thrown some doubt on to it.

I know what you mean about it being difficult to remember, and I doubt it's perfect, but frankly most of the questions were the same, and being able to remember the steps to go from "where" being your organisation, your location, your birthplace, your parents birthplace etc., is pretty logical and easy. The only different bits were right at the end, and those few final lines are the kind that you remember and repeat back easily.

I was thinking about the fact that she resigned and apologised. But do you not think The Firm just said “please do what needs to be done and dont bring heat on to the family” ?

 

[Bluesince1979]

No, the expert opinion was that 3 people wouldn’t produce the exact same transcript.

Again, no one involved is disputing the conversation happened as described. I’m not sure anyone is disputing it except you, presumably because you know it’s an absurd interrogation and your argument that Hussey did nothing wrong relies on Fulani lying about how the conversation went.

No the expert opinion was that someone who isnt a highly trained actor could produce such a detailed transcript the day after. Three just made it nigh on impossible

 

[domalino]

No the expert opinion was that someone who isnt a highly trained actor could produce such a detailed transcript the day after. Three just made it nigh on impossible

Sorry what expert is this again? Do you want to provide a source for this person who says it’s impossible to recall a conversation?

 

[bluenova]

I was thinking about the fact that she resigned and apologised. But do you not think The Firm just said “please do what needs to be done and dont bring heat on to the family” ?

Because they have a track record of doing that? ;)

 

[bluenova]

No the expert opinion was that someone who isnt a highly trained actor could produce such a detailed transcript the day after. Three just made it nigh on impossible

A big difference surely is that the police are supposed to independently write down what happened, so if their written recollections match completely then that's a big red flag. Here, you've got what one person says, and the others say that's how they remember it.

It's not only an easy conversation to remember, but there is also nothing controversial at all in the fact that a couple of people standing with her say that's pretty much what they remember. When you add in that nobody has challenged the events, then it feels like a major stretch to compare it to three dodgy coppers.