D/L wrote:sussexpob wrote:What medical basis do you draw the conclusion on? Can I have an explanation?
in the absence of not speaking to Trott, I think neither of us have any evidence on which to base our opinions (and that is what they are - not conclusions). Forgive us if we don't take the mere description of symptoms, from whatever source, as evidence that Trott must be suffering from them.
I'd simply put it this way. We can only discuss possibilities based upon what we see and hear and it's entirely possible that Trott "didn't fancy it" when he got the hostile treatment from Johnson in Australia. That would
never be communicated in a press statement. His departure had to be given some explanation, though.
No, I don't think I will forgive an attitude that is at best inappropriate and unhelpful (not just to understanding Jonathan Trott's situation, but for anyone else who's trying to get their head round a similar illness whether it's their own or a loved one's) and at worst arrogant, ignorant and offensive.
Frankly, exactly what he's suffering from and to exactly what extent is none of your business, none of anybody else's on this or any other forum and, yes, none of mine. If he and his employer both say he's taking long-term sick leave, then he's sick and you have neither the evidence, nor the authority, nor the right to question that, second guess it or deposit snide innuendo all around it. Just because Jonathan Trott's profession is one that he carries out in public doesn't make him public property and you have no more right to stand there "speculating" (though I think the word "accusing" is more accurate) that he didn't fancy facing Mitchell Johnson than you do to "speculate" that...I dunno, pick a profession...a chartered accountant who went on long-term sick didn't fancy the annual VAT returns.