Last week Beth confronted Deepak in his place of business. Now Deepak answers with a trip to the police, filing charges against Beth.
Events like Beth going to the Internet Cafe and confronting Deepak are those that would clearly draw the most divided comments on line during the summer of 2005. Here are a few from Riehl World View supporting and criticizing her actions. You decide.
|
See, this is what bothered me about her going there. If she 'just' wanted to talk, she would have gone alone and talked. Also, how dare she think that is okay to engage someone for over an hour while they are being paid to work. He was not at work being paid to talk to BHT about anything. While she was there, she totally interrupted their business because noone could get to the counter. She was totally monopolizing the cashier. If I were the owner of the Internet Cafe, I would also speak to the Police about having her banned from the premises. She was not there to have pictures developed. She was there to 'talk' to (or harrass depending on how you want to spin it) one of their employees. This was a disruption of their business and I would imagine highly uncomfortable for anyone else in the building. I lose more and more respect for her every time she pulls one of these antics! |
|
Ten minutes would have perhaps been appropriate; ninety minutes is harassment, especially when you look at the personality of Beth, especially when Deepak did no significant talking to Beth so she did all of the talking. How would you like to have 90 minutes of Beth in your face. Any way you spin this, it was not appropriate. There is only suspicion about Deepak, not proof, else he would be charged with a crime. I can understand why Deepak would not want to talk with her, both because of lawyer advice, but also because he probably has significant resentment against her for the time he spent in jail on her accusations, especially if he is in fact innocent. |
What's the point here?????
Of course the discussion was premeditated to a certain extent but it's still not "stalking", even within Aruba's legal system.
BT's inclusion of a camera could very well been at the suggestion of her lawyer as a defense against a bogus stalking claim. The camera is proof of what was said, and how.
FYI..
1) The cafe was in a public place, and BT was/is welcome there.
2) Deepak never asked her to leave.
3) There were no attempts to verbally abuse or physically abuse Deepak.
5)There were plenty of public witness's on hand.
6)There is no pattern of this type of activity by BT.
7)BT has every right to pose any questions she wants to anyone she meets in a public place or private establishment that is open to the public. This includes talking with any and all suspects.
I suggest that anyone on the island go and question one of the suspects when they are in a public place. Perhaps that will keep their lawyer busy with a multitude of bogus "stalking" claims.
The media does this thing all the time and they are not brought up on stalking charges. It's what you have to put up with when you inject yourself into the spotlight.
Too bad, Soo sad....
|
Is DennisAOK around? If so, Dennis, I was right and you were wrong. Third, this is entirely unfair to the employer that she manipulates the work flow. |