Re: Pete's situation

["L. Bird" <pkeets@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > Pete took the course of honesty.  This is always good for the soul, but 
> it has had obvious problems.  The press was unsympathetic and presented 
> Pete as guilty. Because of this, the sin is now on them.
> >
> > I think the only alternative would have been for Pete or his agent to 
> deny the accusations, which has the risk of being misunderstood as a lie.
>
> Oh, I like this angle on this.  Pete is not a lawyer that is for sure.  
> This is what I really like about him, but sad to say, it is what causes him 
> a lot of trouble.
>
> To just come out and tell things plainly is usually not wise.  Why? Because 
> the audience is usually from hell.
Uh, right.  :)

We could project what might have happened if Pete had handled it another 
way.  I don't have a really clear idea maybe, as I'm not that familiar with 
the UK tabloids, but I'll give it a try.

1) Stonewalling, refusing to say anything about anything.  This seems like 
it would tease the media, and possibly lead to the sort of extended stalking 
that Princess Diana experienced.  Or am I wrong?  Would the press have 
forgotten about this if Pete refused comment?  Would they have enventually 
drifted off, or would he still be fighting through a row of tents every 
morning to get the daily paper?  Meanwhile, Pete stews in guilt.  Word gets 
around.

2) Denying the accusations.  Already covered.  The press investigates and 
presents more evidence.  Pete counters.  The press counters.  Pete stews in 
guilt.  Word gets around.

3) Obfuscating with a Clintonesque statement.  This is the lawyerly 
approach, and we saw it play out in Clinton's case.  The press picks the 
statement apart, makes more snide comments.  As in option 1, this is 
something of a tease, where the press feels Pete is hiding something and 
becomes determined to find it.  Pete stews in guilt.  Suspicions get around.

Instead of going through all this, Pete has chosen the course that suits his 
personality and his spiritual course, which was to make an honest statement 
and hope for the best.  He's left with a certain amount of guilt because of 
the pain this has caused his family and friends, but once the whole thing is 
set in motion, there's little he can do about this.  I personally think more 
of his for his honesty.

I'm interested in the Collins thing, though.  Why did he get such a bye?  
Because the Swiss authorities came out for him.  Again, assuming he's the 
other name on the list, I wonder if 1) there were some negotiations involved 
 2) if Pete's case influenced the authorities and the press  3) if the 
Blair government's ban on the affair had some bearing.  Interesting to 
speculate, eh?


keets

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail