AB - I find it, I don't know, mindboggling is perhaps the right word, that you sort of imply that Hans is lying based on what Hans says about what Amar is saying. I hope that made sense. In other words, if you think Hans might be lying, then how is he a reliable source for Amar? Also I think that is what lawyers call hearsay.
T - If you believe Hans is being truthful then Hans' own brother is calling him a liar. If you believe Amar, then Amar is still calling Hans a liar.
Everything on this page is hearsay and, legally speaking, Prem Rawat is innocent until proven guilty.
But that hasn't stopped people on this forum calling Rawat a "pedophile" on the word of someone who claims everyone in the family has "done him wrong" and he is bravely "forfeiting a promised multi-million dollar inheritance."
A more plausible explanation is Hans already knows he will not be his father's successor and he's furious.
It's 1974 all over again. Eldest son passed over and starts war on youngest son.
AB - Again, my main point about is this. In the face of uncertainty, which the information you say you have seem to dictate, and considering the severity of the accusations, isn't it better to just remain neutral until you have more concrete information? Certainly not to defend the accused abuser? If the accusations turn out to be true, then that is going to be quite regrettable for you don't you think?
T - Mind boggling is the right word to describe your statement above. Yes, in the face of uncertainty, it would be prudent to remain neutral, but instead you and others here have broadcast far and wide that Prem Rawat sexually abused his son and is a pedophile without a shred of evidence. Perhaps, hypocrisy is a better word, don't you think?
Prem Rawat says "in his culture touching an infant's penis is not taboo" and in many cultures it is considered a non sexual and affectionate gesture.
Hans thinks his parents and siblings have "wronged him" and so he has publicly accused his father of "sexually abusing" himself and his brother.
His brother denies it.
But hey, "innocent until proven guilty", common decency and fairness are not part of the ex-premie modus operandi.
Happy to discuss this further AB.
