Jump to content
CUNTS CORNER TWITTER ACCOUNT ID @CuntsCorner ×
Donations towards site upkeep will be thankfully received and faithfully applied....

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Lady Penelope Of The North said:

Snowflake making noms on their own merit?

Rattled much,am I getting to you?

I have made many nominations on my own merit you silly old trout all of which more detailed and with my own personal point of view,it would be refreshing if you copied said formula sometime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Jiggerycock said:

...Happily, if you subscribe to the 'See the person - not the disability!' modus operandi, you're well-equipped to deal with this, since a cunt in a wheelchair (or in this case, a kid in a wheelchair with cunty parents) is still and always will be, a cunt.

 

17 hours ago, Cap'n Cunt said:

If he's a spazz he probably shits himself anyway, so why does he need a toilet?

 

16 hours ago, Decimus said:

No wonder he's a downy little fucking mong, the mother's that old her pussy's haunted...

Revolting, as is much else with this thread...

Its sometimes said that a nation's greatness is judged on how it treats its weakest members so I take small comfort that most of you take orders rather than make them. There is more to this story than the quoted article lets on. Unfortunately even the august BBC has to publish bite-sized news to pander to a readership who, in the main, has the attention span of a lobotomised gnat.

The boy's mother has in fact been battling for more than two years with the amusement park to provide adequate facilities and has had to take legal action as a last resort as Flambards were dragging their feet. The quoted £40K figure (even if true) is peanuts for a business of this size and is a small fraction compared to the cost of installing many of the 27 rides on-site. Flambards sinister attempt at emotional blackmail, "there may be staff cut-backs to pay for this" is appalling PR and is cynical as it is disingenuous. Idiotic comments by some of the puntership remarking that the child can be lifted onto rides without a hoist, so why not a toilet are unhelpful. If people used their brains they would note that 'photos of the boy were taken when he was 9 years old and presumably lighter and more manageable than today. As for the mother being involved with a disabled needs company and therefore "earning commission", she pays them to supply a mobile unit..

Guys, this site is about taking an irreverent, even disrespectful look at the incompetent, the selfish and the hypocritical. Poking fun at disabled kids is not what this site is about.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lady Penelope
15 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

 

 

The boy's mother has in fact been battling for more than two years with the amusement park to provide adequate facilities and has had to take legal action as a last resort as Flambards were dragging their feet. The quoted £40K figure (even if true) is peanuts for a business of this size and is a small fraction compared to the cost of installing many of the 27 rides on-site. Flambards sinister attempt at emotional blackmail, "there may be staff cut-backs to pay for this" is appalling PR and is cynical as it is disingenuous. Idiotic comments by some of the puntership remarking that the child can be lifted onto rides without a hoist, so why not a toilet are unhelpful. If people used their brains they would note that 'photos of the boy were taken when he was 9 years old and presumably lighter and more manageable than today. As for the mother being involved with a disabled needs company and therefore "earning commission", she pays them to supply a mobile unit..

Guys, this site is about taking an irreverent, even disrespectful look at the incompetent, the selfish and the hypocritical. Poking fun at disabled kids is not what this site is about.

 

It is also not a small family concern. It owned by Livingston Leisure who own holiday Parks and attractions throughout the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lady Penelope
1 hour ago, Snowflake said:

Rattled much,am I getting to you?

I have made many nominations on my own merit you silly old trout all of which more detailed and with my own personal point of view,it would be refreshing if you copied said formula sometime.

No I am simply suggesting that you make noms on their own merit without dragging me or your perceptions about me into it. It is clear though that I am "rattling" you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

 

 

Revolting, as is much else with this thread...

Its sometimes said that a nation's greatness is judged on how it treats its weakest members so I take small comfort that most of you take orders rather than make them. There is more to this story than the quoted article lets on. Unfortunately even the august BBC has to publish bite-sized news to pander to a readership who, in the main, has the attention span of a lobotomised gnat.

The boy's mother has in fact been battling for more than two years with the amusement park to provide adequate facilities and has had to take legal action as a last resort as Flambards were dragging their feet. The quoted £40K figure (even if true) is peanuts for a business of this size and is a small fraction compared to the cost of installing many of the 27 rides on-site. Flambards sinister attempt at emotional blackmail, "there may be staff cut-backs to pay for this" is appalling PR and is cynical as it is disingenuous. Idiotic comments by some of the puntership remarking that the child can be lifted onto rides without a hoist, so why not a toilet are unhelpful. If people used their brains they would note that 'photos of the boy were taken when he was 9 years old and presumably lighter and more manageable than today. As for the mother being involved with a disabled needs company and therefore "earning commission", she pays them to supply a mobile unit..

Guys, this site is about taking an irreverent, even disrespectful look at the incompetent, the selfish and the hypocritical. Poking fun at disabled kids is not what this site is about.

 

You will find before you started frothing at the mouth in disgust that in said original nom I did not once call out said child,I blamed it soley on the parent with which I called Rachel,battling aside who our you to tell of the mother's intentions anymore than us who will also  criticise the actions she has done,no one has slated the child except a few childish jokes which is very reminiscent of our  beloved corner,maybe take a chill pill eh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lady Penelope Of The North said:

No I am simply suggesting that you make noms on their own merit without dragging me into. It is clear though that I am "rattling" you.

I am unrattledable  as I hide my skin more than you hide your big suprise downstairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lady Penelope
14 hours ago, Snowflake said:

You share many attributes with the poor lad such as being a downy,shit the bed mong with a cock.

Rule 7 and rule 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Snowflake said:

You will find before you started frothing at the mouth in disgust that in said original nom I did not once call out said child,I blamed it soley on the parent with which I called Rachel,battling aside who our you to tell of the mother's intentions anymore than us who will also  criticise the actions she has done,no one has slated the child except a few childish jokes which is very reminiscent of our  beloved corner,maybe take a chill pill eh.

Calm down Swee'Pea, my post wasn't all about you and your inaccurate speculations. Take your own pill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

Calm down Swee'Pea, my post wasn't all about you and your inaccurate speculations. Take your own pill.

Just as an aside Im not quite working out how my post was all about me when I quote the childish antics of the puntership in said post as my back up for said post,maybe some proof reading before you post would not go a miss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, this site is about taking an irreverent, even disrespectful look at the incompetent, the selfish and the hypocritical. Poking fun at disabled kids is not what this site is about.

It is about thread derailment, personal insults and calling Punkape gay

Occasionally, it's also about puncturing the pompous and the hypocritical and not having read the article in question, but listened to an interview with the mother in question, I stand by my comment  of 'Seeing the person (or in this case, the parent of the person) - not the disability' and that she's a weapons-grade cunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Alfie Noakes
19 hours ago, Decimus said:

No wonder he's a downy little fucking mong, the mother's that old her pussy's haunted.

@Stubby Pecker thoughts?

Blimey, have you been watching Dave re-runs of very old Mock the Week? Frankie Boyle is watching you!

Punkape is a poof.

Edited by Alfie Noakes
Forgot to insult punkape
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

 

 

Revolting, as is much else with this thread...

Its sometimes said that a nation's greatness is judged on how it treats its weakest members so I take small comfort that most of you take orders rather than make them. There is more to this story than the quoted article lets on. Unfortunately even the august BBC has to publish bite-sized news to pander to a readership who, in the main, has the attention span of a lobotomised gnat.

The boy's mother has in fact been battling for more than two years with the amusement park to provide adequate facilities and has had to take legal action as a last resort as Flambards were dragging their feet. The quoted £40K figure (even if true) is peanuts for a business of this size and is a small fraction compared to the cost of installing many of the 27 rides on-site. Flambards sinister attempt at emotional blackmail, "there may be staff cut-backs to pay for this" is appalling PR and is cynical as it is disingenuous. Idiotic comments by some of the puntership remarking that the child can be lifted onto rides without a hoist, so why not a toilet are unhelpful. If people used their brains they would note that 'photos of the boy were taken when he was 9 years old and presumably lighter and more manageable than today. As for the mother being involved with a disabled needs company and therefore "earning commission", she pays them to supply a mobile unit..

Guys, this site is about taking an irreverent, even disrespectful look at the incompetent, the selfish and the hypocritical. Poking fun at disabled kids is not what this site is about.

 

Granted, the form of 'digest journalism' employed doesn't address all relevant factors involved, but what you see as idiotic comments regarding the hoist issue are perfectly valid. The issue is that the mother claims the child cannot be placed onto a lavatory without the use of a hoist, while the article also states that he enjoys the rides at the park. The closed in seat and safety harness of a theme park ride would surely be more inaccessible than a toilet seat? Yet are still accessed without lifting equipment. And how is the child's age immediately obvious from a photograph?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bill Stickers
39 minutes ago, Eric Cuntman said:

Granted, the form of 'digest journalism' employed doesn't address all relevant factors involved, but what you see as idiotic comments regarding the hoist issue are perfectly valid. The issue is that the mother claims the child cannot be placed onto a lavatory without the use of a hoist, while the article also states that he enjoys the rides at the park. The closed in seat and safety harness of a theme park ride would surely be more inaccessible than a toilet seat? Yet are still accessed without lifting equipment. And how is the child's age immediately obvious from a photograph?

You’re clutching at fucking straws eric, you’re a disgrace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest luke swarm
3 minutes ago, William T.D. Stickers said:

Don’t try and be aloof with me eric, it’s not fooling anyone

unfortunately I think it may have fooled Mr Soles but then so does breathing and blinking simultaneously.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bill Stickers
1 minute ago, Eric Cuntman said:

Grumpy little bastard aren't we? Mummy come home with the wrong flavoured pop-tarts?

fuck off.

Pop tarts? YANKEE GO HOME. Fucking idiot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...