Quote:
Originally Posted by hot2go
What logic ?...Chloe's crime was actual and directiy targeted a real life victim...it was also confirmed by her police record...Andrews accused of childish and bigotted tweets with a friend...most importantly it's not been proved and he's not had chance to defend himself....Chloe was proved and she had chance to defend herself but instead tried to ruin a guys life to cover her tracks ....
Innocent till proven guilty ....not guilty till proven innocent ....she was proven to be guilty he hasn't been
|
The proof is all there for Andrew though? He tweeted those things, there's evidence, it's fact. No "accusations" whatsoever.
So, like I said, if you think Chloe did not deserve to win for her hate crimes then neither should Andrew.