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

Mohamed Al-Fayed "It's Terrible" Codswallop.


ChildeHarold

Recommended Posts

195+ "victims" forgive me for being an itsy bitsy bit sceptical.   It's all too courtroom-drama-queen easy for my liking.   The Establishment never liked Fayed going after good old prince and queenie.   Smells a bit fishy. 

Paralysed with fear usually warrants a doctor's prescription. 

These so called victims, if there are many or any, also took something for it.    Money. 

Now they want more. 

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/national/24598585.mohamed-al-fayed-accuser-says-fear-left-paralysed/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to some bulldyke who managed Fulham's women's team in 2001, measures were put in place to protect players as Al Fayed was known to have a taste for "attractive, little blonde girls".

I've got a few issues with this statement. First of all, it stinks of racism, using the age old Robinsonesque trope that middle-eastern men go absolutely insane whenever a ripe, Aryan treat is dangled in front of them.  

Secondly, even if you buy into that, have you ever seen a female footballer who could be classed as petite, dainty and attractive? Al Fayed would have found the contemporary Fulham mens player Edwin van der Sar more feminine than any of these fucking pigs:

OIP.NfMKcDa--tlCzPkfnmwxNQAAAA?dpr=1.3&p

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Decimus said:

According to some bulldyke who managed Fulham's women's team in 2001, measures were put in place to protect players as Al Fayed was known to have a taste for "attractive, little blonde girls".

I've got a few issues with this statement. First of all, it stinks of racism, using the age old Robinsonesque trope that middle-eastern men go absolutely insane whenever a ripe, Aryan treat is dangled in front of them.  

Secondly, even if you buy into that, have you ever seen a female footballer who could be classed as petite, dainty and attractive? Al Fayed would have found the contemporary Fulham mens player Edwin van der Sar more feminine than any of these fucking pigs:

OIP.NfMKcDa--tlCzPkfnmwxNQAAAA?dpr=1.3&p

 

Don't Fulham FC have a statue of Michael Jackson? I'd have been more concerned about protecting the U10s team if that lanky cunt was sniffing around.

Heehee shamone 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Decimus said:

According to some bulldyke who managed Fulham's women's team in 2001, measures were put in place to protect players as Al Fayed was known to have a taste for "attractive, little blonde girls".

I've got a few issues with this statement. First of all, it stinks of racism, using the age old Robinsonesque trope that middle-eastern men go absolutely insane whenever a ripe, Aryan treat is dangled in front of them.  

Secondly, even if you buy into that, have you ever seen a female footballer who could be classed as petite, dainty and attractive? Al Fayed would have found the contemporary Fulham mens player Edwin van der Sar more feminine than any of these fucking pigs:

OIP.NfMKcDa--tlCzPkfnmwxNQAAAA?dpr=1.3&p

 

Yep it feeds into the prayer mat at one end of the hotel suite in the Tower Knightsbridge and a prossie at the other end.  Have you seen the fucking shoulders on that doorman in the casino? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ChildeHarold said:

Yep it feeds into the prayer mat at one end of the hotel suite in the Tower Knightsbridge and a prossie at the other end.  Have you seen the fucking shoulders on that doorman in the casino? 

How did princess Di differ from Cinderella?

At midnight she turned into a wall.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Decimus said:

How did princess Di differ from Cinderella?

At midnight she turned into a wall.

A bit harsh.   Dirk Bogarde's autobiography was called A Short Walk From Harrods and its like grief ridden countdown of leaving France, returning to horrid Britain, depleting resources, terminal illness and death, and ending up in a one bed flat not in your preferred A* location which we gather is worse than the former.   That little stretch between South Ken tube and Wellington Arch with its swathes Dukie Westminster estates has a magnetic draw for dysfunctional people.   You've got the V&A the most dubious of museums then the London Oratory.   Didn't that notorious cat burglar Peter Scott pull off a few jobs round there?   Sophia Loren's jewellry? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChildeHarold said:

A bit harsh.   Dirk Bogarde's autobiography was called A Short Walk From Harrods and its like grief ridden countdown of leaving France, returning to horrid Britain, depleting resources, terminal illness and death, and ending up in a one bed flat not in your preferred A* location which we gather is worse than the former.   That little stretch between South Ken tube and Wellington Arch with its swathes Dukie Westminster estates has a magnetic draw for dysfunctional people.   You've got the V&A the most dubious of museums then the London Oratory.   Didn't that notorious cat burglar Peter Scott pull off a few jobs round there?   Sophia Loren's jewellry? 

I don't know who any of these people are.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Miles
3 hours ago, ChildeHarold said:

195+ "victims" forgive me for being an itsy bitsy bit sceptical.   It's all too courtroom-drama-queen easy for my liking.   The Establishment never liked Fayed going after good old prince and queenie.   Smells a bit fishy. 

Paralysed with fear usually warrants a doctor's prescription. 

These so called victims, if there are many or any, also took something for it.    Money. 

Now they want more. 

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/national/24598585.mohamed-al-fayed-accuser-says-fear-left-paralysed/

I only asked you what you thought about it .. I did not ask for a song and dance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Miles said:

I only asked you what you thought about it .. I did not ask for a song and dance.

I'll be kicking you so hard in the fucking balls this time next year that you'll finally have a voice high enough to legitimately pass as a bird.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised x-amount of Fayed's alleged victims are coming forward for a retrospective payday. The numbers could be doubtful, but they could also be real – and even fall short of what they actually might be. There's no smoke without fire.

This now-deceased piece of shit hails from a country in which Sunni and Shia Muslim laws reign supreme (about 90% collectively), where Islam itself can be identified as the reason why it's regulative for women to be covered up like full Guinness bottles, beaten for having an opinion, often raped, and given no legal rights to marriage, divorce, children, wealth and inheritance.  

While there are considerable differences between Arab countries as to the above, Egypt remains one such Muslim state in which women are treated like shit. So, when you have a wealthy Arab brought up in this environment, who made much of his money dealing arms for the terrorist-funding Saudis before purchasing Harrods, it comes as little surprise he behaved in this manner when let loose in a free-thinking Western environment where money talks.

Once again, the fucking BBC is currently having a field day over wimmins' rights and gender equality – and that's fine – but it really also ought to be highlighting the political ideology and chief religious culprits as to why this (alleged) sexual predator thought it was OK to behave in this manner in our country.

Why can't they speak the truth? Surely this should be about education borne from fact from the Beeb's perspective. The fact is the UK (as with Sweden, Holland, Germany et al.) provides Muslim women seeking refuge a place in which to be treated as equals – something still ignored by many Muslims who consider themselves British.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wolfie said:

I'm not surprised x-amount of Fayed's alleged victims are coming forward for a retrospective payday. The numbers could be doubtful, but they could also be real – and even fall short of what they actually might be. There's no smoke without fire.

This now-deceased piece of shit hails from a country in which Sunni and Shia Muslim laws reign supreme (about 90% collectively), where Islam itself can be identified as the reason why it's regulative for women to be covered up like full Guinness bottles, beaten for having an opinion, often raped, and given no legal rights to marriage, divorce, children, wealth and inheritance.  

While there are considerable differences between Arab countries as to the above, Egypt remains one such Muslim state in which women are treated like shit. So, when you have a wealthy Arab brought up in this environment, who made much of his money dealing arms for the terrorist-funding Saudis before purchasing Harrods, it comes as little surprise he behaved in this manner when let loose in a free-thinking Western environment where money talks.

Once again, the fucking BBC is currently having a field day over wimmins' rights and gender equality – and that's fine – but it really also ought to be highlighting the political ideology and chief religious culprits as to why this (alleged) sexual predator thought it was OK to behave in this manner in our country.

Why can't they speak the truth? Surely this should be about education borne from fact from the Beeb's perspective. The fact is the UK (as with Sweden, Holland, Germany et al.) provides Muslim women seeking refuge a place in which to be treated as equals – something still ignored by many Muslims who consider themselves British.

There's truth in what you say.  The news seems to have departed from truth.   What are the guidelines for covering a news story?   There aren't any.   It seems to be entirely subjective.  So why all this hue and cry about "regulating" (i. e. censoring) social media which is clearly opinions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/09/2024 at 10:49, Wolfie said:

where Islam itself can be identified as the reason why it's regulative for women to be covered up like full Guinness bottles, beaten for having an opinion, often raped, and given no legal rights to marriage, divorce, children, wealth and inheritance.  

Bradford, Blackburn, Birmingham?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/09/2024 at 10:49, Wolfie said:

I'm not surprised x-amount of Fayed's alleged victims are coming forward for a retrospective payday. The numbers could be doubtful, but they could also be real – and even fall short of what they actually might be. There's no smoke without fire.

This now-deceased piece of shit hails from a country in which Sunni and Shia Muslim laws reign supreme (about 90% collectively), where Islam itself can be identified as the reason why it's regulative for women to be covered up like full Guinness bottles, beaten for having an opinion, often raped, and given no legal rights to marriage, divorce, children, wealth and inheritance.  

While there are considerable differences between Arab countries as to the above, Egypt remains one such Muslim state in which women are treated like shit. So, when you have a wealthy Arab brought up in this environment, who made much of his money dealing arms for the terrorist-funding Saudis before purchasing Harrods, it comes as little surprise he behaved in this manner when let loose in a free-thinking Western environment where money talks.

Once again, the fucking BBC is currently having a field day over wimmins' rights and gender equality – and that's fine – but it really also ought to be highlighting the political ideology and chief religious culprits as to why this (alleged) sexual predator thought it was OK to behave in this manner in our country.

Why can't they speak the truth? Surely this should be about education borne from fact from the Beeb's perspective. The fact is the UK (as with Sweden, Holland, Germany et al.) provides Muslim women seeking refuge a place in which to be treated as equals – something still ignored by many Muslims who consider themselves British.

I remember reading about one or two women, who had reported the carpet beetle to the pigs, who then did absolutely fuck all about it.

I presume the mighty rulers issued few missives to keep these activities under a lid; with Diana fucking the mobster’s offspring, etc, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, White Cunt said:

I remember reading about one or two women, who had reported the carpet beetle to the pigs, who then did absolutely fuck all about it.

I presume the mighty rulers issued few missives to keep these activities under a lid; with Diana fucking the mobster’s offspring, etc, etc.

Al Fayed's relationship with the Royal Family stinks to high heaven. As with fellow sexual predator and (alleged) molestor of underage girls Andrew (who really ought to have been handed over to the FBI), there are serious ethical questions over the massive dirty money funding they received from the Egyptian billionnaire wanker, which undoubtedly contributed to maintaining their profile among the richest and most famous in the world.

The vast majority of UK citizens are working hard yet struggling – and it's been this way for some years. Diana, Andrew et al. – corrupt to the core imo – enjoyed/enjoy a life of utter luxury and privilege at the expense of those who struggle to put food on the table for their families. But the good news is they are without question on the demise, and in years to come people will look back and question how this was actually acceptable and tolerated. The genuine service they once provided as civil servants died with The Queen.

German immigrant bloodlines, class, caste, money – their shit reeks as much as everyone else's and they're as pompous as the elite who conquered more than half the world with an iron fist during the Victorian era.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Al Fayed's relationship with the Royal Family stinks to high heaven. As with fellow sexual predator and (alleged) molestor of underage girls Andrew (who really ought to have been handed over to the FBI), there are serious ethical questions over the massive dirty money funding they received from the Egyptian billionnaire wanker, which undoubtedly contributed to maintaining their profile among the richest and most famous in the world.

The vast majority of UK citizens are working hard yet struggling – and it's been this way for some years. Diana, Andrew et al. – corrupt to the core imo – enjoyed/enjoy a life of utter luxury and privilege at the expense of those who struggle to put food on the table for their families. But the good news is they are without question on the demise, and in years to come people will look back and question how this was actually acceptable and tolerated. The genuine service they once provided as civil servants died with The Queen.

German immigrant bloodlines, class, caste, money – their shit reeks as much as everyone else's and they're as pompous as the elite who conquered more than half the world with an iron fist during the Victorian era.  

The real purpose of the monarchy is to hide the real owners of Britain behind a facade that has continuous entertainment value for the population.   It's the major obstacle to reform and progress.  There is no consttitution written down or framed in law.   There are no citizens rights enshrined in law.   There is no possibility of a third party or any independent voice breaking the hold of the two arse cheek parties, as everybody is starting to realise now.   On top of all that, generations of deculturing, low quality education, lack of further education, reverse colonisation and deliberately planned mass immigration have effectively stun gunned any constructive intelligent opposition to this system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ChildeHarold said:

The real purpose of the monarchy is to hide the real owners of Britain behind a facade that has continuous entertainment value for the population.   It's the major obstacle to reform and progress.  There is no consttitution written down or framed in law.   There are no citizens rights enshrined in law.   There is no possibility of a third party or any independent voice breaking the hold of the two arse cheek parties, as everybody is starting to realise now.   On top of all that, generations of deculturing, low quality education, lack of further education, reverse colonisation and deliberately planned mass immigration have effectively stun gunned any constructive intelligent opposition to this system. 

You're correct in that there is no formal all encompassing document covering the British Constitution hence the term 'unwritten constitution'. For me that's part of the charm of the British way of doing things - rather like providing a terraced house instead of a gaudy whitewashed mansion or a palace as the official residence of the Prime Minister. The constitution is enshrined via various statutes, e.g. the Act of Union 1707, case law and convention as codified by the theoretically unofficial Erskine May (1844 onwards).

11 hours ago, ChildeHarold said:

The real purpose of the monarchy is to hide the real owners of Britain behind a facade that has continuous entertainment value for the population.   It's the major obstacle to reform and progress.  There is no consttitution written down or framed in law.   There are no citizens rights enshrined in law.   There is no possibility of a third party or any independent voice breaking the hold of the two arse cheek parties, as everybody is starting to realise now.   On top of all that, generations of deculturing, low quality education, lack of further education, reverse colonisation and deliberately planned mass immigration have effectively stun gunned any constructive intelligent opposition to this system. 

Wot? How about the Magna Carta (1215) The Bill of Rights (1689) and the Human Rights Act (1998) et al? You should spend more time in the library and less time pounding the keyboard.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wolfie said:

Al Fayed's relationship with the Royal Family stinks to high heaven. As with fellow sexual predator and (alleged) molestor of underage girls Andrew (who really ought to have been handed over to the FBI), there are serious ethical questions over the massive dirty money funding they received from the Egyptian billionnaire wanker, which undoubtedly contributed to maintaining their profile among the richest and most famous in the world.

The vast majority of UK citizens are working hard yet struggling – and it's been this way for some years. Diana, Andrew et al. – corrupt to the core imo – enjoyed/enjoy a life of utter luxury and privilege at the expense of those who struggle to put food on the table for their families. But the good news is they are without question on the demise, and in years to come people will look back and question how this was actually acceptable and tolerated. The genuine service they once provided as civil servants died with The Queen.

German immigrant bloodlines, class, caste, money – their shit reeks as much as everyone else's and they're as pompous as the elite who conquered more than half the world with an iron fist during the Victorian era.  

I agree it’s one conjoined, perverse dungeon of thieving, violent, inbred freaks, offering a smattering of entertainment value for the stupendously retarded masses, whom they control top to bottom.
But what better leadership can we expect (should we require any leadership), when the aggressors preside over tens of millions of mentally stunted, obedient slaves, such who never look into real education outside the casted tracks? Who possess no self awareness, control and direction? Who never put what little real knowledge they procure into practice?

The conductors’ lineages go beyond some German roots, those are the very recent ones; you can place their origins in the Middle East, Africa, Turkey and southern Italy.

We get what we deserve, W. A complete pile of shit. And as long as the majority seems content with such arrangement, the system will continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

You're correct in that there is no formal all encompassing document covering the British Constitution hence the term 'unwritten constitution'. For me that's part of the charm of the British way of doing things - rather like providing a terraced house instead of a gaudy whitewashed mansion or a palace as the official residence of the Prime Minister. The constitution is enshrined via various statutes, e.g. the Act of Union 1707, case law and convention as codified by the theoretically unofficial Erskine May (1844 onwards).

Wot? How about the Magna Carta (1215) The Bill of Rights (1689) and the Human Rights Act (1998) et al? You should spend more time in the library and less time pounding the keyboard.

Just for clarity, H…this is not a chocolate covered ice-cream on a stick. No need to thank me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mrs Roops said:

You're correct in that there is no formal all encompassing document covering the British Constitution hence the term 'unwritten constitution'. For me that's part of the charm of the British way of doing things - rather like providing a terraced house instead of a gaudy whitewashed mansion or a palace as the official residence of the Prime Minister. The constitution is enshrined via various statutes, e.g. the Act of Union 1707, case law and convention as codified by the theoretically unofficial Erskine May (1844 onwards).

Wot? How about the Magna Carta (1215) The Bill of Rights (1689) and the Human Rights Act (1998) et al? You should spend more time in the library and less time pounding the keyboard.

None of that is written into law except trial by jury Anglo-Saxon in origin.   As for human rights that is only available due to international conventions of which we are a signatory.    You own nothing in this country even your body.   Everything is legally property of tje Crown in the last resort.  Is that what you call charm? 

The French people are the nation.   The same can be said of the USA.   This is not true of Britain.   The Crown is the nation (in name and law) but behind that so called "evolutionary" perfidious Albion holds all the power and pulls the strings.   

That's why we need to smash eggs to make an omelette.   Up the workers!   Up The Corner!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ChildeHarold said:

The real purpose of the monarchy is to hide the real owners of Britain behind a facade that has continuous entertainment value for the population.   It's the major obstacle to reform and progress.  There is no consttitution written down or framed in law.   There are no citizens rights enshrined in law.   There is no possibility of a third party or any independent voice breaking the hold of the two arse cheek parties, as everybody is starting to realise now.   On top of all that, generations of deculturing, low quality education, lack of further education, reverse colonisation and deliberately planned mass immigration have effectively stun gunned any constructive intelligent opposition to this system

While Blair & New Labour thought he could force a 90%-plus white indigenous majority to become multi-ethnic for our own good (lol!), with deliberately planned mass-immigration which looks set to continue under pro-minority Steamer, added to the fact I quite like the way you attempt to get involved in debates which require a bit of thought, by God please research facts before sounding off.

It's as though mice are burrowing into your head, through your ears, and preventing you from listening to what others are saying to be able to form an educated and worthy opinion, Aitch. I don't think you're mad. But I do think you're a bit thick. Thick enough to believe you're worthy of joining in-depth political discussions when your knowledge is a little thin on the ground – your recent Eric Gill-BBC comment a good example. And thick enough to believe your head is full of brain cells when, in fact, it's generally full of nothing at all.

Cherokee words of wisdom: “Listen or your tongue will make you deaf.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

While Blair & New Labour thought he could force a 90%-plus white indigenous majority to become multi-ethnic for our own good (lol!), with deliberately planned mass-immigration which appears to continue under pro-minority Steamer, added to the fact I quite like the way you attempt to get involved in debates which require a bit of thought, by God please research facts before sounding off.

It's as though mice are burrowing into your head, through your ears, and preventing you from listening to what others are saying to be able to form an educated and worthy opinion, Aitch. I don't think you're mad. But I do think you're a bit thick. Thick enough to believe you're worthy of joining in-depth political discussions when your knowledge is a little thin on the ground – your recent Eric Gill-BBC comment a good example. And thick enough to believe your head is full of brain cells when, in fact, it's generally full of nothing at all.

Cherokee words of wisdom: “Listen or your tongue will make you deaf.”

I don’t know why you're picking holes in my mainly deadly factual posts about the British NON constitution.   There is the subject/serf mentality about you which I find both repulsive and strangely interesting, like an insect wriggling in the water butt.  Fuck off.   Hey what's happened to Mrs Brown on the TV - is this another casualty of woke?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ChildeHarold said:

None of that is written into law except trial by jury Anglo-Saxon in origin.   As for human rights that is only available due to international conventions of which we are a signatory.    You own nothing in this country even your body.   Everything is legally property of tje Crown in the last resort.  Is that what you call charm? 

The French people are the nation.   The same can be said of the USA.   This is not true of Britain.   The Crown is the nation (in name and law) but behind that so called "evolutionary" perfidious Albion holds all the power and pulls the strings.   

That's why we need to smash eggs to make an omelette.   Up the workers!   Up The Corner!

I'm not sure what is meant in your first sentence but whatever...

Its ironic that you mentioned that "human rights that is only available due to international conventions" as well as the inference of the USA as a [proper] nation together with some nonsense about the Crown being the legal owner of everything. You do know that the Bill of Rights (1689) was the instrument that finally removed supreme power from the Crown and transferred same to the people represented by Parliament hence the phrase 'Parliament reigns supreme'? The irony in your post is that the Bill of Rights passed in 1689 is the foundation stone of not only the US Bill of rights but also the UN Declaration and the EU Convention of human rights!

Incidentally, you fav goto phrase of the moment appears to "perfidious Albion" a pejorative used against the British by what ever nation had some beef with the UK. The term was coined when all the royal houses of Europe were shafting each other to gain advantage with alliances and in turf disputes over tracts of land claimed in the third world. Really, you conspiracy nutjobs need to at least agree as to who is pulling the strings...is it the WEF, Deep State, lizard people or perfidious Albion? Sort it out.

  • Like 1
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...