Mrs Roops
-
Posts
6,388 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Posts posted by Mrs Roops
-
-
1 hour ago, Dyslexic cnut said:
This is a Saucepants level meltdown. It’s a beautiful thing to witness and, quite frankly…I couldn’t be happier. You stupid old menopausal cuntess. As for my career, shoulder injury and wife…sometimes I lie. Dopey dry-quimmed bint.
Oh, OK...
On 26/11/2021 at 13:11, Dyslexic cnut said:You can always opt for what I recently have. Three r/cuff tears sutured, one bolted into the arm, calcification filed & shaved and ligaments re-attached. 6-7 titanium pins now. Six months of physio to follow. On the plus side, the morphine/oramorph was fuckin superb with the right music on of course. Still can’t sleep on the fucker. The shoulder is the body’s very own cuntjoint for sure. Good luck…
On 26/11/2021 at 13:36, Dyslexic cnut said:They reattached my short-stem bicep which had pinged off. You can buy one of those Cryo-cuff things which pump iced water around the shoulder…superb. Then fill it with warm water. My private medical policy picked up the bill but they’re not that expensive (£135-ish) It’s fuckin sleep that’s the problem though so I’m still kipping with the shoulder sling on. I’d been waking up in agony due to Corner nightmares and throwing imaginary punches at various cunts on here while I slept.
-
45 minutes ago, Dyslexic cnut said:
Never mind this shit. Firstly, she’s not a meteorologist, she’s a disabled presenter who got the job because of a BBC initiative to promote flids. I’m sure the fact that she’s a bit tasty and, I assume has a clout had nothing to do with her success. Secondly, how the fuck do you know that she’s either ‘sweet’ or ‘charming?’ Doubtless you thought that Huw was calm, sensible, eloquent and reassuring before certain news broke. For all you know, this raspberry may, in between interpreting climatic weather systems, be shoving her stump up a 17year old trainee’s mott in the taxpayer funded BBC khazis and filming it. Are you presumptious and gullible or a bit of a filthy old bull-dyke? Explain yourself.
You've rather proved my point, haven't you? Crippled by a shoulder injury which has put your career as an airport baggage handler on hold you channel your bigotry against anyone who has lost the use of one arm. Having to ponce off your wife probably doesn't help either. I suspect mental health issues are at play. I wanna help, I really do - so let me go full-on Willoughby, don a façade of winsomeness and ask, are you OK? Betchya feeling better already...
-
22 hours ago, Wolfie said:
I don't agree – for the clear-cut reasons I've already made known. You're missing the point I've been making about mental health... again, in as much as it's becoming the go-to modus operandi of the modern celebrity, which is hugely disrespectful to those who genuinely suffer from it. For this reason, one can easily place Schofield & Edwards in the same pigeon-hole. I thought I had made myself very clear (to both you & LCS) in my previous comments, but perhaps your superior nature is preventing you from seeing things from another's perspective.
My opinion simply differs from yours, that is all, and you're half-heartedly attempting to scorn me for simply having one, which, ironically, is precisely what you've done in your post. Some people just don't do irony, do they?
...he said without the slight trace of irony
I'm not sure I want to add to LCS's comments as he's made sure you sorta resemble the Titan submersible rotting on some Newfoundland quayside.
That said, whilst some "celebrities" may hide behind bogus mental health issues I'm not sure its the "go-to modus operandi" for the purposes and extent that you suggest though it seams to be pulled up by every defence brief as a plea for mitigation for every crime between shoplifting at a local convivence store to serial killers.
My superior nature is minded to think that celebrities discussing mental illness helps to destigmatize a taboo subject that otherwise is kept hidden resulting in prolonged misery for sufferers and their friends and family alike. On the whole people can't handle interacting with those with mental illness or, as it happens, physical deformity. Witness the pile of vitriol on a sweet, charming one-armed meteorologist who's only crime was having the temerity of doing her job of weather forecaster.
-
17 hours ago, Wolfie said:
A sense of justice, not vengeance, though if the latter accompanies it, be it so.
It comes as little surpise a well-paid public sector worker has leapt to the defence of another (grossly) well-paid public sector worker.
With such a verbose piece of shit as the above, which I've just about managed to get through without nodding off, what makes you the abmassador of what it is to be moral, or in Huw's case, to attempt to self-inoculate? Just listen to yourself, sympathising with the poor guy. I still call bullshit on this one, as I've already alluded to.
You and the other snowflakes can say of Huw's behavior "it's not illegal... so it's not anyone else's business" etc. Yes – but it's still unethical. And perhaps if one is masquerading as 'Mr Consummate BBC', then you take what comes with the territory if you behave like an idiot. If you put yourself out there, in the public eye, for a £440,000 salary, as Huw chose to do (when millions in the UK stuggle to make ends meet, who pay this, so the amount is consequential), then you should expect things to come your way – whether good or bad. It comes with the BBC domain, and it works both ways. If you do something deceitful and you're on TV for half a million quid at the expense of the taxypayer, then expect people to give you a good fucking kicking if you act the cunt. It seems like anything which goes wrong nowadays with TV presenters (Schofield, Edwards) is brushed off as another "mental health" issue.
Once the mental health card has been played, it's as though there's a line drawn no one can longer cross, and everyone has to pull back in a shower of sympathy. This is what the snowflake, Guardian-reading, lentil-farting brigade always do - and this is precisely what you and Roops (in this instance) are doing.
I see through these cunts, Huw included. Clearly you don't. What this (alleged) Welsh pervert has done, and is doing, is wrong. Take those struggling with mental health issues on a daily basis, for example. Wouldn't they love to have the immediate access to the sort of help or treatment Huw or Phil are receiving? Why has it taken a couple of cock & arse-wrangling filthies (allegedly), both mortally embarrassed by their actions above all else, to suddenly bring people's mental health issues to the fore (because claiming this is the least damaging route for them)? What happened to their dignity? There's nothing more noble than the BBC!
You are right, in as much as what people choose to do in their private lives is none of my business. Whatever Huw wants to spend £35k on, or whatever images he wishes to look at, is none of anyone's business. But – and this is a big but – if you're masquerading as something else (the BBC News main anchor, with a long-term wife, five kids, pet dog, the face of BBC news for 25 years, lecturing on the state of the economy, the war in Ukraine, with a gentle twist of sympathetic Welsh intonation, addressing on what according to the BBC is truth and what is not truth... ahhhhh... shut up, what bullshit! When you're clearly pretending to be something you're not, because you (allegedly) actually spend your money on looking at young men's cocks & bums, and you're grossly overpaid for doing something which has made you a household name, then expect to be challenged – especially when you've not been honest.
Not surprisingly, you can stick your comment squarely up whichever sphincter receives it first, Doc.
Gosh, having received both barrels in the face from LCS your response is as expected - histrionics, insults and conflation.
Firstly you need to separate Schofield and Edwards as the dynamics of both cases are entirely different. With Schofield, his relationship with another ITV employee was meant to be that of professional mentor to a young man wanting to get into broadcast production. As we know that relationship may have had ulterior motives and therefore constituted an abuse of power so that was a problem for ITV management, the second problem was that Schofield when asked about the disturbing rumours categorically denied that anything untoward was taking place. The first problem was that Schofield's carefully constructed elder brother/silver fox persona to Willoughby's ingenue (which was past its sell-by date in any case) was dead in the water so he had to leave 'This Morning'. The denials sealed his fate with regards to his relationship with ITV.
Secondly, stop obsessing about Edwards' salary. He was paid the market rate and not for just reading an autocue. I agree that the BBC needs to sort itself out but that will not happen with Culture Secretaries lasting only few months at a time. FWIW I believe following Reithian principles is as relevant now as it was in the 1920's. To this end a greatly slimmed BBC down should be split into two entities; the existing licence fee funded Corporation restricting itself to existing radio, World Service output and TV content to news gathering and dissemination, current affairs and documentaries, the rest being sold off on a franchise basis. "Aunty Beeb" when done properly was a national treasure looked on with envy by the rest of the world. America's PBS, set up with good intentions, is a poor substitute.
-
2
-
-
19 hours ago, Wolfie said:
Why do you continue to defend the BBC? They're ripping people off while abusing their power, mostly through manipulation of news rather than being impartial. While I wholeheartedly understand the defamatory aspect, and I genuinely express my gratitude to you for keeping this unique site's survival in mind, you'll be hardly surprised when I say I don't agree. And I name-dropped you for obvious reasons... so get off your high horse, especially as you responded directly to my previous comment! Let me keep this really simple (as to why this fiasco ought to be in the public eye, and the end of the BBC's modus operandi as we know it).
--o0o--
Edwards' behaviour is a clear abuse of power. If a teacher, doctor, policeman, social worker et al. was to engage in such behaviour they would quite rightly be struck off. Agreed?
As a mother (perhaps your kids are older than teens now), you must have experienced their vulnerability at most stages of their lives, so what a shame both you – and the BBC & Guardian lefties – haven't expressed much thought about the effect Edwards' actions have had on these teens and their families... you have offered sympathy only for the Edwards family. Come on! The fact The Sun had its cheque book out is irrelevant. Facts are facts, and facts about a trusted public sector worker buying sex pics from a teenager should be brought to the attention of the public, especially as the enforcement of the licence fee pays Edwards' hugely inflated half a million quid wages. You reap what you sow, Huw.
I utterly resent having to pay a TV Licence to watch not just the BBC but other channels on the back of this ongoing legal extortion. All the money you pay is lining the pockets of the BBC elite, Huw Edwards included. People are sick of it. It's time the BBC was decompartmentalised and made into a subscription-only service, as with other leading channels such as Sky. Would it survive? Who cares! People buy because they want the service; the BBC knows damn well it'd be the end of it (as we know it) if such a private route was taken, thanks to the likes of Linekar, Vine and Edwards et al. So why do you continue to support them? Times have changed.
And, again, the £440,000 this makeup-clad (and probably spunk-clad) tosser is paid to read the news is absolutely obscene! On the back of your comment, let me ask you a question: when Schofield had a relationship with a youngster, and tried to conceal it, which caused him an acrimonious public outing, he cried "mental health" and no one cared. So how and why is Huw and the BBC any different? Are you showing him more support than you otherwise might because he's Welsh?
...so after making a bogus claim about the BBC's mental health "stance" you're now carrying on in the same vein whilst keeping this "really simple".
Firstly, you've made the claim that I continuously defend the BBC with the strong inference that I'm a BBC/Guardian type lefty. Actually, I'm on record on having a jaundiced view of the BBC but I always endeavour to be objective in my assessment of the Corporation's news reporting.
On 28/02/2020 at 10:18, Mrs Roops said:With both wings of the political spectrum accusing The BBC of bias towards the other side, one can be fairly sure the broadcaster is trying to be as even-handed as possible. But yes, with charter renewal looming the corporation seem to be stepping up a gear. That said, the new Director General really, really needs to do something about the bloated management structure and to temper the wokeness that seems rife in all facets of the BBC's operation.
There are many more posts where I have criticised the BBC's top-heavy management structure and the resultant lazy journalism that occurs by replacing specialists with generalist reporters which has resulted in merging the World Service, news reporting and the current affairs divisions mainly at the expense of the once superb local and regional news hubs. FTR I have stated that my personal political philosophy is towards the right of the political spectrum (with soft libertarian values), have zero tolerance for third wave feminism and my position on gender politics is similar to J K Rowling's.
You then go on to make the risible claim that the possibility of chequebook journalism is "irrelevant". Of course its relevant as it calls into question the motivation of the young man's family, more so when calling in the police was the last port of call. As for the young man, very little is known - he could be a lost soul driven to desperation to obtain funds to feed an out of control habit yet he seems quite adept in monetising his body parts which begs the question has he had prior experience in dealing with weak men, in which case who was exercising "power"? All we know is that no criminality took place so not our business. Let the the two families, one of which is clearly dysfunctional, sort themselves out - hopefully with health professionals.
-
2
-
-
41 minutes ago, Mike Hunt said:
Jimmy Savile.
The Savile case does have a dimension that falls into the scope "of public interest" as a number of his victims were procured on BBC premises. The BBC knew or at least were aware of his behaviour and owed a duty of care to the young people who featured in televised shows involving him.
-
2
-
-
20 hours ago, Wolfie said:
I notice the BBC has carefully been 'losing' this week's Huw Edwards revelations by not publishing anything further about its ongoing "investigation" into him, while allowing what has been published to gently fall away in its news listings. In addition to its recent (and somewhat timely) Dele Alli 'mental illness' narrative, I see today there's another story about the 'mental struggles' of boxer Josh Kelly on the Beeb's website... well, this comes as a surprise!
To me, this past week's spluttering commentary about the BBC 'star' and his alleged sexual misconduct has revealed just how deep the hypocrisy of our woke elite runs; the same people who would happily point the finger of racism or homophobia at you for an off-colour joke think it's outrageous that The Sun has reported the incredibly serious allegations levelled at Edwards. The same people who obsess over the most minor wrongdoings seem to think claims about a rich and powerful man using his taxpayer-funded salary to buy sex pics from a teenage crack addict should not be in the 'public interest'. (This goes back to what @Snowy & myself were saying the other day, @Mrs Roops.)
All because they – and I refer directly to the BBC and its broadsheet cousin The Guardian – wish to use Edwards as another stick with which to beat the tabloid press. Do they realise how ridiculous they sound, and that most people can see through them? Perhaps they simply don't care.
How about another BBC 'mental health' sympathy stance on former star radio presenter Tim Westwood, who just days ago was interviewed by police for a third time for alleged sexual misconduct while employed at White City studios?
The BBC is so full of its own shit that it actually defies belief, and I have little doubt Huw Edwards would still be getting paid £440,000 for reading autocues in his underpants had the The Sun not had the balls to go for the jugular. Clearly, right-wing tabloids still have an important role to play in our woke society.
There is a difference between what is of interest to the public and what is in the public interest. That said, I don't know why you've name-dropped me as my comments thus far on the recent press furore have concentrated on protecting The Corner from receiving letters from Messrs Sue, Grabbit & Runne. Hold on a minute as I change hats...
--o0o--
Your post is at best misplaced and reeks of the bar room. Firstly, the Sun, whose Sunday edition, formerly known as the News of The World before the title was quickly dropped for outrageous and criminal behaviour, is no stranger to bashing its' competitors, sometimes for the most spurious and hypocritical of reasons.
You've made the point that Edwards' salary is taxpayer-funded. My reaction to that is so what? Are we now given to understand that every taxpayer-funded employee (17% of the UK workforce) should now be subject to scrutiny by the morality police? What Edwards or any other public employee chooses to spend their salary on (criminality not withstanding) is none of our business.
I think the whole Edwards/BBC charade of investigation by social media, pearl-clutchers and hysterical press are asking the wrong questions. Why did the young man's family first approach Edwards' employer and then the Sun newspaper? Surely, if criminality was involved the first port of call would be the police? I would also be asking if the Sun opened it's chequebook to secure the story.
You've mentioned Tim Westwood and the "BBC mental health stance"; granted I spent only a couple of seconds looking for this "stance" and came up with nothing. The only reference to mental health I could find was an Independent enquiry commissioned by the BBC offering mental health support to witnesses who were affected by reliving their encounter with Westwood.
Really, people should pipe down and let the Edwards family deal with their laundry in private.
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, Last Cunt Standing said:
I am some distance away, but this story has me confused now. Huw appears to have been caught paying for sexual services on the internet. The police say he has no case to answer, currently at least. The young unnamed provider of said sexual services says there’s no case to answer. The mob cry cover up and wave their pitchforks as they were asked, of course. Opportunistic colleagues with an axe to grind pile in with “he sent me a late night text and signed off with an X!” - please. The Sun, serving as some Orwellian moral guardian, seem to have based their story on the outrage of parents appalled by their offspring’s life choices, and are now in full reverse-ferret claiming no criminality was alleged, while screengrabs suggesting otherwise are preserved in internet aspic.
A middle aged man, otherwise respectable, lies in a psychiatric hospital dealing with the fallout of thinking with his cock as his poor wife picks up the pieces. Thirty five grand will soon look like chicken feed. Being stupid on the internet and thinking with your cock. Something hundreds of thousands of men do every day, including some here I shouldn’t wonder. It’s stupid, grubby, and isn’t for the dinner table, but I wouldn’t fancy a British tabloid giving someone I love a public enema much either, thanks.
No laws appear to have been broken thus far. Yet the usual suspects line up with Murdoch to denounce the BBC as paedo central and want it scrapped/defunded/turned over to private capital. These people would perhaps do well to reflect on the company they keep and the standards The Sun has championed down the years. The disgusting creature that is Kelvin McKenzie perhaps as exhibit A.
What frustrates me is the targets these people pick for the full pack of hounds treatment. Meanwhile, Boris gets to ennoble his intern, withhold his phone from a public enquiry, and cavort with the KGB while Foreign Secretary. Gets a soft focus new dad piece in The Mail. George Osbourne might have done something unspeakable, says a mysterious email. Michelle Mone gets a nine figure sum for not much and spunks it on a yacht, while public servants are told to try a little harder if they want a cost of living rise. All with not a murmur from the Nations favourite comic.
They’re laughing at you. And you love them for it.
A pretty accurate summation IMHO, just sayin'
-
1
-
-
I've just spent a few minutes moderating comments from the usual smart arses who no doubt thought they were being clever. That said, it was good to see two punters putting forward reasoned arguments;
12 hours ago, Snowy said:It's the puntership giving out there views on who it is ,whilst the establishment of cuntscorner smacks there arses ,I fully say it is graham norton ,doesn't mean it's true.
I admit I get it ,you have to moderate this site so it doesn't end up like the other sites past gone ,but there should be a sense of denied plausibility.
I can say any racist shit I want ,but you cut the point when it pertains to this kinda thing.
The lovvies could take you down to.
I propose a new idea for the site ,flower gardners weekly.
We can grow all are own plants ,which we harvest every 7th of the month .
After the harvest we can all meet up and dance around a massive cunt shaped object to atone for our past discretions.
11 hours ago, Wolfie said:Disagree. Discussing a story of this magnitude must involve names on the BBC payroll, otherwise it becomes a fairly pointless discussion.
People are throwing names into the ring on the Corner's beloved Twatter (in addition to other leading social media platforms), so it's only natural a fairly innocuous corner of the internet such as this also speculates among the allegations. No one is being publicly defamed – only theorized.
The BBC deserves precisely what it is suffering for ruthlessly fulfilling its hugely inflated and disgustingly unfair presenter salaries; hopefully this latest sex scandal will take some of its power away because people will refuse to fund perverts via licence fees.
If I recall, the BBC didn't pull any puches when it reported on Scholfield's affair with a young man at the ITV studios – and at a time after it must have received contact from either the police (April) or family of the then-teen at the centre of this furore (May). What action has it taken in seven weeks? It stinks of another cover-up. What fucking hypocrites. It's turning into an existential problem for them now, lol.
The one aspect I am loving most of all is the BBC is being forced to publish and expose more damaging revelations about their own star presenter (and with today's second claim), but is still refusing to name him! People who pay the cunt's £100,000+ salary should have the right to know who it is – and to speculate if they so wish. That's freedom of speech.
On the 4th November 2012 Sally Bercow (wife of the then HoC Speaker) tweeted "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*" - all very innocuous. Unfortunately the defence of plausible deniability cut no ice with the courts as Ms Bercow's five words and emoji cost her £15,000 as well as a shedload of legal costs. After McAlpine relieved the BBC & ITV some £310,000 (plus costs) for unfounded paedo allegations he then went after the Twitterati with the intention of suing anyone who directly accused or inferred that he was a paedophile. In the end McAlpine, realising that the optics of unleashing legal Armageddon on thousands of twitter uses did not look too good, went after the Twitter users who were public faces or had more than 500 followers. Those who had less than 500 followers nevertheless had to post a grovelling apology and donate £25 to a selected number of charities.
More recently, Sir Cliff Richard took South Yorkshire Police and the BBC to the cleaners for publicising the police's search of his home, in fact some of the content was livestreamed from a helicopter. SWP caved in immediately as they had the sense to realise their actions were contrary to standard police procedures. The BBC dug their heels in and fought the case on the basis of "free speech" and "the public's right to know". At this point I would say that I was as surprised as much as m'learned colleagues were when the courts ruled in favour of Sir Cliff. Broadly speaking the courts ruled that the the BBC were fully entitled to broadcast that the police were searching a home as part of operation Yewtree but had no right to infringe on Sir Cliff's right to privacy (up to this point Sir Cliff wasn't even aware that he was being investigated).
In short as per my previous comments on this matter no names unless they have been outed through the normal channels. Now, some of you keyboard warriors may blather on about the right to free speech but its very easy to protest this behind the cloak of anonymity especially as someone else, i.e the site's owners, have to pick up the tab.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Eric Cuntman said:
Did you spot the bit in brackets, ‘(if memory serves)’ just before some comparative stuff? Memory bollocks! Meticulously checked.
I think quite a lot of Roops, and I know she’s a little bit softer than she lets on. But she’s a fucking blagger sometimes.
Honest onions about the memory thang - I've had most travel shots going and then some.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, King Billy said:
I’m so anti-vax that last Wednesday my girlfriend and I had 5 vaccinations each at Superdrug in Watford (cost £480).
1 (Diphtheria, tetanus and Polio).
2 Hepatitis A.
3 Meningitis ACWY.
4 Typhoid
5 Yellow fever.
Not bad for an antivaxxer but we both know that describing the mRNA cocktails which prevent neither, infection or transmission as ‘vaccines’ required the ‘totally trustworthy’ WHO to change the actual definition of ‘vaccine’ prior to the roll out.
But I’m happy that all the fatties, wrinklies, NHS bed blockers and immuno compromised hypochondriac whingers such as yourself have survived the most deadly pandemic ever, even if the other 99% of people will be paying for the dubious pleasure of prolonging your miserable existence for decades to come. 😘
Well, I guess we'll have to take your word about you and your gf's vaccinations in view of your predilection for telling porkies. Be that as it may, you've merely demonstrated that you still don't have a sodding clue what vaccines do and don't do. All five of the listed vaccines will neither prevent infection nor transmission. Like the mRNA vaccines they simply prepare the body should you become infected. The difference between the vaccines you say you've taken is that all five introduce an inactive pathogen into your body (though if memory serves, the yellow fever shot is very much "active") whereas the mRNA shot introduces a protein incorporating a set of instructions for the body to make it's own antibodies. One mo' thing; eventually the majority of vaccines, including the ones on your list will be made this way for the simple reason that mRNA shots have been proven to be safer and the rate of rejection is miniscule compared to the "traditional" vaccines. Before you kick off, mRNA vaccines have been rolled out for more than a decade...
-
I realise that this is a big ask but some of you need to calm down. Please stop pulling random celebrity names. By all means discuss the unfurling story and the BBC's reaction who, by the way, are legally hamstrung by case law after broadcaster's cock up in reporting the police investigation into Cliff Richard.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, King Billy said:
Isn’t it a strange world we now live in when probably the fittest athlete on the planet makes the very difficult decision (at huge cost to himself both financially and career wise) not to have an experimental medical procedure, the side effects of it unknown, rush produced, bypassing almost every previous trials and testing criteria, and marketed by corporations with an abysmal past history of dishonesty and total disregard for the recipients of their products worldwide, who refused to supply their products to any country who wouldn’t give them legal immunity from the multitude of victims they knew were an absolute certainty to come in the aftermath while they were busy counting their billions of profits, suddenly became public enemy No1 to be vilified and destroyed in the ‘new normal’ Covid19 propaganda war that the masses had lined up like sheep to bleat when ordered to by their masters?
Novak Djokovic is a fucking hero who as far as I know didn’t kill Granny, cause the fucking ludicrous ‘R’ rate to fly upwards off the chart, single-handedly cause the collapse of any health service anywhere, but instead stuck to his principles and is now being cheered on as he cements his legacy as the GOAT by the same gutless former mask wearing cunts who were accusingly pointing their talentless bony fingers at him 18 months ago.
Fucking spineless cunts. I hope the new variant kills them all and their piss soaked Tena pants wearing Grannies.
So desperate to cram as much anti-vax rhetoric as possible that you've contradicted yourself. Good to see that you've also repeated baseless claims that previously resulted you falling flat on your face.
-
11 hours ago, King Billy said:
How’s about we call a truce and I come over to your place tomorrow night? I’m not promising anything but maybe I could show you how to open all those MENSA mags and if I’m feeling any stirring down below, we could go upstairs for a cuddle and possibly a bit of dry anal ATM before you swallow the lot and I fuck off to the pub?
You can always ring me and apologise once you’ve waved bye bye to me and gone back upstairs and wiped your chin.
I think this could be the start of something very special. 😘After getting everything wrong for the past few years I suppose all you have left is to project an imaginary power, nevertheless - its probably best you keep me out of your fantasy wank-bank.
-
9 hours ago, King Billy said:
Awww babe, that’s so sweet. If you keep being nice to me like this I might give in and let you have the best 10 minutes of your life some day soon. Obviously the first 9 and a half minutes of foreplay would be spent doing something you’ve never even imagined in your wildest fantasies. APOLOGISING. 😘
Hey, not my fault you were short-changed when allocated a measure of grey matter. Seek your apology elsewhere.
-
12 hours ago, King Billy said:
I’ll hazard a guess that the entire contents of your ‘unwilling to explain’ folder would be extremely difficult to tell apart from the entire contents of my ‘unwilling to even consider the possibility I might ever be wrong’ folder’ which bears your name.
The way things are going I’m really starting to think I might never give in and let you have your way with me. Sorry.
Yeah, doubling down on the bluster gives you away.
-
14 minutes ago, King Billy said:
You know he did. Anyway I thought I told you to get fucked?
No worries, KB - we'll mark that down as "unable to explain". Stay warm.
-
7 hours ago, King Billy said:
You know he won just like all the other ‘head in the sand’ idiots like you do. It’s OK though. I understand that your mental disorder is real and I genuinely hope you’ll one day wake up and see sense.
Until then Get fucked! 😘
Hardly a compelling argument, is it? G'wan, do the convicted grifter-in-chief and sexual abuser proud and explain how he won the election.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Last Cunt Standing said:
Are you Player or Referee this week, just so we all know? Or do you intend on continuing this schizoid position of straddling both camps? And by “straddling both camps”, I’m not surreptitiously slipping in a reference to those infamous Readers Wives shots we’ve all been struggling for years not to confuse with the Great Pit of Carkoon. And by Carkoon I don’t mean @Eddie.
You seem to effortlessly straddle the roles of Remainer snide-in-chief and being deliberately obtuse, nevertheless I think you have sufficient nous to work it out.
-
22 hours ago, Last Cunt Standing said:
Well, thanks for that. I’m sure there’s a point in there somewhere.
You know there is. I was addressing you surreptitiously slipping in yet another post-brexit anecdote.
-
5 hours ago, Last Cunt Standing said:
Oh dear, my little joke seems to have upset you. It’s rather a good job this is written down (well done on that, by the way) as every other argument I have ever had with one of you leek-fancier types has resulted in me being covered in spittle as you mangle your way through vowels and consonants like Vorderman on acid. Your foot-stomping insecurity about how beautiful Wales might be speaks largely for itself. Personally I can’t forgive the place for giving me my first and only needlestick injury on a Rugby field just outside Merthyr. I wasn’t playing with you savages for clarity, rather one of your young ladies had offered to show me how green was her valley and I rolled on to the fucking thing mid-act.
Your hope that the PLA will one day slaughter every Australian is quite sweet of you. I will pass it on to our Armed Forces next time I see any of them in the pub. Perhaps you could give my regards to your local sheep farmers, who seem to have been tucked up like rollmop herrings by the Aus-UK FTA Boris was so desperate to sign. The local livestock community here take the view that the competitive edge they now enjoy over the British farmer might be the best use of a packet of TimTams since Marianne Faithful toured Australia with the Stones.
Get fucked you thin-skinned cunt. Go stick your head in a popty ping and give yourself three minutes. I’m sure any Welsh housewife can give you an idea of what three minutes waiting for something to happen feels like.
Ah, that's the thing about farmers, irrespective of nationality - they always take a parochial viewpoint. In fact the Aussie farmers benefited from a similar FTA whilst the UK was part of the EU yet they never produced the allocation of produce afforded to them under the EU-Aus agreement so its difficult to see as to how they will take advantage of an UK-Aus FTA which provides tariff-free agricultural produce which is seven times the size of the previous agreement. The truth is that the British are very much into consuming home-grown produce so the reality is Australia will fill the gap that British farmers can't supply provided that Australia can transport the product half-way around the world. One benefit to the UK is that part of the deal, Australia will provide the necessary nod-through for the UK to join the far more lucrative CPTPP (Trans-Pacific).
Here's an interesting aside - The UK-Aus agreement provides for about £14 billion p.a. of agricultural trade (imports and exports). The recent UK-USA-Aus submarine deal where Australia will purchase British designed and built (with some American tech) nuclear powered submarines is worth £350 billion.
-
7 hours ago, King Billy said:
This prophecy hasn’t aged very well Gypps has it?
Yeah, such prophesising tend to bite people on the bum...
On 20/10/2020 at 20:39, King Billy said:...He’s gonna win by a landslide though.
🇱🇷TRUMP 2020🇱🇷MAGA🇱🇷
On 01/10/2020 at 21:13, King Billy said:...Trump is going to win by a landslide next month and the Dems will still not accept the result. Their propaganda machine has been pushing the fake news that Trump is planning to cheat the vote and all the time it’s them who are actually doing that...
On 08/09/2020 at 18:14, King Billy said:...He will be re-elected by a landslide in November and the democrats are already openly planning to refuse to accept the decision of the American people...
-
1 hour ago, Old Chap Raasclaat said:
Excellent. Did you enjoy reading about my Cyprus conquests? I know you've read them, at least twice.
You've been reading too many Jackie Collins novels.
-
10 hours ago, Snowy said:
Indeed why I post about them ,whilst nonsensical in my own manner I am indeed posting my own topics about the cunts of the world.
But you was the one accusing Billy about having so many posts which you then shoved in his face ,to which I replied that I have less than Lady pen.
Keep up girl.
Were only getting started.
Excellent, let's hope you have at last found a pair of big-boy pants 'cos so far all we've had from you is insecurity, petulance, cry-baby antics and twisted narratives (including quote above).
"keep up" indeed...
-
1
-
Mental Health
in The Corner
Posted
It appears you're having another minnow moment...and people accuse me of pedantry...