I think the problem with Truby’s testimony is establishing the objective truth. There is a lot of spin and conjecture in what he says that could just be put down to a disgruntled ex:
“I thought Dan was my best mate,” he says. “But he put me under immediate pressure to move things forward with him. I was asking for time and space, but I got ultimatums. I was put in a position. He said ‘we either get together or I’m gone from your life completely’.
“I was vulnerable. I had just lost what I thought was the love of my life, and suddenly I was going to lose my best mate too. I didn’t even have time to grieve the relationship. I just found myself tumbling into this relationship with Dan.”
This is a guy who is three years older than Dan. If he didn’t want to get in a relationship with him, he could have said no. I don’t think he can blame Dan for the fact he ‘tumbled into a relationship’ with him. Not saying I don’t think Dan’s a reprehensible arse btw, but you’ve got to take the emotion out of it.
I think Truby’s account should have been in Part 1, and I also don’t think Byline Times needed to act like Truby was some kind of victim or saint in order for him to be telling the truth about Dan W. It’s simple enough that he was with Dan and saw some of what went on.
I could say more on the details but it will sound like I’m defending Dan again, which I have absolutely no intention of doing — suffice to say I can see a few things in the articles that Dan’s lawyers, the esteemed… Griffin Law, whoever they are, would be able to push back on. I’ll leave them to work that out.
I think The Guardian’s story was just based on Dan’s column not appearing as Tattlers here first pointed out as far as saw!
There should be enough out there for GB News to to least be concerned with doing the right thing and suspending Dan or if they don’t want to do so, they should give detailed reasons why, for example they’ve at least looked into it themselves and (rightly or wrongly) don’t see enough to suspend him in their opinion.