Tomous wrote:still wrote:Tomous wrote:still wrote:Tomous wrote:still wrote:Tomous wrote:still wrote:Tomous wrote:still wrote:False wrote:Well I mean technically by the letter of the law it sort of was a conspiracy
Public were being told untruths and misinformation was being supplied by the palace and now the probable truth has outed
What untruths?
What misinformation?
I’m a staunch republican but I’m afraid neither of those actually apply.
What.
They've been lying about her health condition for 3 months. Understandably so, but it's indisputable that they haven't been telling the truth until now.
Factually incorrect. As stated she went in for abdominal surgery with the presumption that it wasn’t cancerous. The diagnosis of cancer came as a result of the operation. Like I’ve said I am not remotely a monarchist but I would prefer it if we stuck to the facts.
Do you think she just got the result back today or something?
They've known for 3 months and she started chemotherapy at the end of February but the whole time they've said she was at home recovering from the surgery only.
As people expected, they weren't telling the whole story and there was more going on.
Prove ‘they’ve known this for three months’ please. They have not said she was only recovering from surgery just recovering. Keeping information back is not yet, as far as I know it, in this country a criminal offence.
No one is saying they committed a criminal offence, why are you arguing this
You are stating that ‘they’ve known this for three months’. Really? Exactly how do you know this? Do you have access to her medical records?
Because medical biopsies like that don't take months and months to return.
I thought she had surgery in December but seems it was mid January and she was discharged at the end of January. She would most likely have known at this point and they'd have started preparing for her chemotherapy starting at end of Feb. So 3 months was an exaggeration but they've no doubt known for well over a month.
I thought, most likely…. Would that stand up in court do you think?
I reckon so, because I could get a medical expert on the stand to agree with my timeline you dipstick
Ah, abuse as a result of your own illogicality. I’m not entirely sure I’m the dipstick here! Goodnight though, you keep making assumptions that fit your own believes. Or, heaven forbid, open your mind to the thought that you may just be making non-factual assumptions.