Caroline Flack

[femmegirly]

I think he definitely dated Caroline as her friend Dawn O’Porter came out in defence of them at the time and said how mature Harry was!

If it was indeed a relationship between Nick and Harry, how tit is it that Caroline may have been thrown under the bus and labelled a pon, purely to cover up that Harry likes dudes, as that would have been seen as a much worse thing for his and 1D’s brand. I really thought beards were a thing of the very distant past. Dawn could have been part of the cover up too So icky to claim a teenager as being ‘mature’ in defence of them being groomed by a fully blown adult - in any case they are all complicit.

 

[tagliatelle]

I have always thought there was something between him and Nick!

I think he definitely dated Caroline as her friend Dawn O’Porter came out in defence of them at the time and said how mature Harry was!

Maybe I’m just old and cynical but I don’t believe celebrities’ friends defending them in public to be indicative of anything other than a semi-decent PR strategy.

The whole thing makes me feel uncomfortable because Pleasing definitely feeds into the non!het Harry hype.

 

[Suzesnooze]

If it was indeed a relationship between Nick and Harry, how tit is it that Caroline may have been thrown under the bus and labelled a n, purely to cover up that Harry likes dudes, as that would have been seen as a much worse thing for his and 1D’s brand. I really thought beards were a thing of the very distant past. Dawn could have been part of the cover up too So icky to claim a teenager as being ‘mature’ in defence of them being groomed by a fully blown adult - in any case they are all complicit.

He was probably more mature than Caroline!
---

Maybe I’m just old and cynical but I don’t believe celebrities’ friends defending them in public to be indicative of anything other than a semi-decent PR strategy.

The whole thing makes me feel uncomfortable because Pleasing definitely feeds into the non!het Harry hype.

She even defended her when it came out she had ‘lamped’ Lewis!

 

[thegirlscout]

There was no "smashed" lamp in the photos.

There was an unplugged lamp on the floor near the bed in the photo. It’s unclear if it’s smashed because you only see the base and plug.

 

[troutpout69]

At the end of the day, the CPS advised persecution, so there must have been enough evidence to go to court otherwise it would have been thrown out. Unfortunately Caroline was ill equipped to deal with her MH issues and I think it was swept under the carpet by tv production. The press were actually pretty kind to her initially. She was hugely popular, pretty and obviously attracted men very easily. Unfortunately she couldn’t hold down relationships and I’d imagine she was a very demanding difficult person to be with. Nobody is to blame for her choice to commit suicide. I agree with other posters that she would have found another reason to do it another time.

 

[wellingtonboots]

In that period of time after being arrested and taking her life her ex Andrew Brady was posting about her being abusive to him, but did a complete 180 when she died and almost beatified her and was gunning for Dan Wooton. I think he went off the rails completely and ended up getting arrested for his posts

I remember this, he was enjoying it all coming out about what caroline had done, and was implying he’d been waiting to hear things like this as similar had happened to him.
then suddenly when she died he acted a very grieving ex

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

There was an unplugged lamp on the floor near the bed in the photo. It’s unclear if it’s smashed because you only see the base and plug.

I have the feeling that if the lamp would have been smashed Lewis would have taken a photo of it (and also have sent it to the press).

He only took a photo of the area of the room that showed blood, which was later established was not his, but hers.

Also, if she really would have hit him with a lamp so hard that the lamp smashed then it would not be possible for Lewis to only have such a small scratch as shown in the Daily Fail.

https://www.archive.is/oldest/https...-tiny-wound-boyfriend-Lewis-Burtons-head.html

He was quick-witted enough to take a photo and then send it to someone and then to the Sun, so he could not have been very injured.
---

I remember this, he was enjoying it all coming out about what caroline had done, and was implying he’d been waiting to hear things like this as similar had happened to him.
then suddenly when she died he acted a very grieving ex

Lewis did the same. After she died he was full of regret, and said that he had also asked the police to not press charges.

Yet, he had decided to take this incriminating photo and sell it to the media, which started all the publicity.

 

[troutpout69]

I have the feeling that if the lamp would have been smashed Lewis would have taken a photo of it (and also have sent it to the press).

He only took a photo of the area of the room that showed blood, which was later established was not his, but hers.

Also, if she really would have hit him with a lamp so hard that the lamp smashed then it would not be possible for Lewis to only have such a small scratch as shown in the Daily Fail.

https://www.archive.is/https://www....-tiny-wound-boyfriend-Lewis-Burtons-head.html

He was quick-witted enough to take a photo and then send it to someone and then to the Sun, so he could not have been very injured.
---


Lewis did the same. After she died he was full of regret, and said that he had also asked the police to not press charges.

Yet, he had decided to take this incriminating photo and sell it to the media, which started all the publicity.

He was obviously injured enough for them to want to press charges though! There’s no disputing that!

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

He was obviously injured enough for them to want to press charges though! There’s no disputing that!

I don't think the grade of injury is that much of a determining factor, the fact that there was an alleged beating (with whatever object or also with the hands) should be sufficient to press charges. If you slap someone and they have no visible injury they could still press charges against you.

 

[troutpout69]

I don't think the grade of injury is that much of a determining factor, the fact that there was an alleged beating (with whatever object or also with the hands) should be sufficient to press charges. If you slap someone and they have no visible injury they could still press charges against you.

Ok but they certainly had enough evidence to provide a case for her at least attacking him

 

[VeniVidiVicki]

Please stop minimising domestic violence @whathastheworldcometo. It’s really not okay.

 

[MammaTubbs]

She was being charged with 'Assault by beating' from Google it states the following: "a variation of the offence of Common Assault. Assault by beating refers to a common assault where physical force is applied. It is sometimes referred to as battery."

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

Please stop minimising domestic violence @whathastheworldcometo. It’s really not okay.

This is not at all what I am doing. She said she flicked a phone at him which is also considered to be assault and therefore domestic violence.

I just don't agree with publicly repeating something that has not been proven (smashing a lamp on his head) and could not be confirmed and in fact it is only Caroline that would know whether she used a phone or a lamp or anything else - and she is dead.
Lewis was asleep.

I really do not think it is ok to repeat something about a dead person, especially a person that killed herself due to her poor mental health (!), that nobody can confirm and nobody knows.

Why is it not enough to say she hit him in his sleep?

Where does the obsession with the lamp come from and why is it not ok to say his injury was minimal (which even the Daily Fail said and can be seen on the photo)?
---

She was being charged with 'Assault by beating' from Google it states the following: "a variation of the offence of Common Assault. Assault by beating refers to a common assault where physical force is applied. It is sometimes referred to as battery."

Yes, this is what I am saying. Slapping someone is also battery/assault (physical force. No object required. No injury required.).
She said she flicked a phone at him. This is also battery.
He said she hit him with a lamp. Also battery.

If there would have been a trial this issue of what object had been used might have been determined based on the evidence provided.

if you conclude that I am saying there was no assault because I say that the lamp theory had not been proven then this is a misconception.

Even if she would have slapped him with her hand only, without a hard object, it would have been assault.

 

[OnlyHereForTheLolz]

This is not at all what I am doing. She said she flicked a phone at him which is also considered to be assault and therefore domestic violence.

I just don't agree with publicly repeating something that has not been proven (smashing a lamp on his head) and could not be confirmed and in fact it is only Caroline that would know whether she used a phone or a lamp or anything else - and she is dead.
Lewis was asleep.

I really do not think it is ok to repeat something about a dead person, especially a person that killed herself due to her poor mental health (!), that nobody can confirm and nobody knows.

Why is it not enough to say she hit him in his sleep?

Where does the obsession with the lamp come from and why is it not ok to say his injury was minimal (which even the Daily Fail said and can be seen on the photo)?
---


Yes, this is what I am saying.
She said she flicked a phone at him. This is also battery.
He said she hit him with a lamp. Also battery.
If there would have been a trial this issue might have been determined based on the evidence provided.

if you conclude that I am saying there was no assault because I say that the lamp theory had not been proven then this is a misconception.

Even if she would have slapped him with her hand only, without a hard object, it would have been assault.

We “get it”, you apparantly have a “law degree”. And we can’t disagree with you because according to the inquest legally he weren’t lamped

 

[VeniVidiVicki]

You absolutely are minimising DV @whathastheworldcometo. A scalp wound is not a ‘scratch’. And no one has ever broken skin on someone’s scalp under a full head of hair by ‘flicking a phone‘.

Write as many walls of text as you like.

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

Frankly, I am getting the impression that it is you who is minimising domestic violence.

Is it hard to understand that what she had admitted to already qualifies as domestic violence?

Do you need the mental picture of an evil mentally deranged woman smashing a lamp over a helpless sleeping man to call it domestic violence?

---

You absolutely are minimising DV @whathastheworldcometo. A scalp wound is not a ‘scratch’. And no one has ever broken skin on someone’s scalp under a full head of hair by ‘flicking a phone‘.

Write as many walls of text as you like.

I don't know, I never tried "breaking skin" on someone's head, but if you are able to determine that it was not a phone, but a lamp, you can reach out to CPS to inform them, because they do not have this ability.

The reports said scratch and not scalp wound.

EDIT: So to finish this topic off (for me) I just asked ChatGPT if flicking or throwing a phone can cause an open wound and apparently yes it can, and it could even kill someone as apparently a phone is heavier than a bullet.
---

We “get it”, you apparantly have a “law degree”. And we can’t disagree with you because according to the inquest legally he weren’t lamped

You are very welcome to disagree with me, but I argue with facts, not silly GIFs. Sorry.

Also, it was CPS, not the "inquest legally".

 

[OnlyHereForTheLolz]

Frankly, I am getting the impression that it is you who is minimising domestic violence.

Is it hard to understand that what she had admitted to already qualifies as domestic violence?

Do you need the mental picture of an evil mentally deranged woman smashing a lamp over a helpless sleeping man to call it domestic violence?

---


I don't know, I never tried "breaking skin" on someone's head, but if you are able to determine that it was not a phone, but a lamp, you can reach out to CPS to inform them, because they do not have this ability.

The reports said scratch and not scalp wound.

EDIT: So to finish this topic off (for me) I just asked ChatGPT if flicking or throwing a phone can cause an open wound and apparently yes it can, and it could even kill someone as apparently a phone is heavier than a bullet.
---


You are very welcome to disagree with me, but I argue with facts, not silly GIFs. Sorry.

Also, it was CPS, not the "inquest legally".

Using ChatGP immediately makes me dismiss anything you say

 

[ahtisyourself]

“Well your honour, I asked chat GPT and they said she didn’t do it so….”

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

Clearly it is not possible to have any constructive discussions with you. I provided facts, you couldn't deal with them.
You are just bullies.

And yes, I should have predicted that artificial intelligence would overwhelm you.

Chat GPT is quite commonly used in the legal profession now:

How in-house lawyers can (and should) use AI and ChatGPT | The Law Society

In-house teams need to get on board with generative AI: that's the message from Lizzy Lim, legal counsel at Trustpilot. She shares how ChatGPT and other forms of AI can enhance productivity of in-house departments, and what risks legal professionals should be aware of.

www.lawsociety.org.uk

And - ironically - I actually did speak to a HHJ (meaning: His Honour Judge) today and address hin as "Your Honour". Yes, in court. As an advocate.
And - guess what - my submitted evidence contained translations produced by AI - which was totally acceptable to the HHJ. Wow, huh?

i guess the jokes on you (as always?).


(Sorry, but I now understand why you have to use GIFs and Emojis. I will no longer communicate with you, it would be more sensible to argue with pigeons.)

 

[OnlyHereForTheLolz]

Clearly it is not possible to have any constructive discussions with you. I provided facts, you couldn't deal with them.
You are just bullies.

And yes, I should have predicted that artificial intelligence would overwhelm you.

Chat GPT is quite commonly used in the legal profession now:

How in-house lawyers can (and should) use AI and ChatGPT | The Law Society

In-house teams need to get on board with generative AI: that's the message from Lizzy Lim, legal counsel at Trustpilot. She shares how ChatGPT and other forms of AI can enhance productivity of in-house departments, and what risks legal professionals should be aware of.

www.lawsociety.org.uk

And - ironically - I actually did speak to a HHJ (meaning: His Honour Judge) today and address hin as "Your Honour". Yes, in court. As an advocate.
And - guess what - my submitted evidence contained translations produced by AI - which was totally acceptable to the HHJ. Wow, huh?

i guess the jokes on you (as always?).


(Sorry, but I now understand why you have to use GIFs and Emojis. I will no longer communicate with you, it would be more sensible to argue with pigeons.)

---
I knew, I knew you from somewhere