Thanks
@LadyMuck
Thanks
@Chita for the recap and
@Hula flight for the title.
GB News "Head-to-head" on whether the Stoat should have been awarded the Pat Tillman Award, farcically presented as though it was a balanced debate and there were real pros and cons both sides.
Gaslighting, the presenter asked at the end "What do you think? Should Harry have reived the Award?"
Of course he shouldn't. 76,000 objections and the hero's mother herself voicing her disgust. A first, which they turned a blind eye to because it's all about Money and Titles.
The arguments
for, flaccidly voiced by forgettable Grant Harrold, amounted to a) Harry's sterling work with Invictus Games and b) his stellar military career.
Both these arguments are baseless, ignore the missing IG millions and obscene Harkle expenses, and Harald's total failure as a soldier from Day 1.
The arguments
against were lucidly voiced by Lowri Turner, backed by Pat's mother.
Of course the Pat Tillman Foundation Board wanted the Stoat to receive the award. Possibly Archewell made a big donation? The Pat Tillman Board are crooked, they're all in it making money and angry hulk Serena's in on it too.
The Award fiasco did a very good job of distracting from the serious matter of Harald deleting evidence in his court case. Still no reporting anywhere on this as there has been in all his other cases, dissection and analysis.
Dan Wootton barked like a guard-dog under a bed at the "outrage" over the award, safe that he's not exposed because he has no brave views. Nobody has. What a stuffed hamster he is, and he has the nerve to call himself "outspoken.
Rotten to the core, the lot of them.