8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
We all forget the lesser known parts of the Sermon on the Mount, "Blessed are those who gun down desperate refugees drowning in the Med..."
Yeh, and in the course of doing so you've included a strawman and a number of lies. Perhaps you could recognise this, apologise, and move on. Also, the only people I've met said fella are plod. Catch yourself on.Sort yourself out fella. The point was you referred to the words of a stones song, and in the context of referring to a woman's perceived beauty/age I thought it poor on the grounds of they being a mysogenistic group of multimillionaires who wrote some very poor taste lyrics. Just move on, as this must be boring for others
This is the piece I was talking about, , is when you quote the stones about time destroying a woman's face, I think that is retro sexist shite, illustrated by the photo of wizened old Keith Richards a man that time has also not been kind to. It's the point of - what relevance is Hopkins looks to anything?So does time, which the rolling stones observed could destroy a woman's face
Plod??? What you on about ? things have moved on from Dixon of dock green. But from where I come from, we don't accuse eachother of being a "straw man" whatever the fuck vocabulary that is either. Plod. - it makes me think of some old Ealing comedy. And no I'm not old billYeh, and in the course of doing so you've included a strawman and a number of lies. Perhaps you could recognise this, apologise, and move on. Also, the only people I've met said fella are plod. Catch yourself on.
Oh yeah, context-free observation with no overtone of suggested humour, judgement or any other actual reason to make the comment. Absolutely, mate.Nonsense. The initial comment didn't, it simply observed that Hopkins looks older than she is. That's not judging her, it's a factually accurate observation of the type made daily by millions without comment. The only judgement made was subsequently by existentialist who suggested that hate aged people, but that didn't seem to bother anyone.
I don't understand the claims of £300k+. According to the Guardian's story this morning, all lawyers were on no win, no fee. So Hopkin's own costs will be zero and Munroe's will be whatever she has been awarded, no more (i.e. £104k). Unless I've missed something out?
I think that is what you mean.
She's been ordered to make a downpayment on the costs pending a decision on the full amount. The lawyers are asking for 300k, according to a tweet.
Damn! I keep forgetting you are the same age as me.
Agree with you entirely, there's no place for comments on her appearance regardless of how much of a monster she is - and regardless of willing she is to be personal about all kinds of people (Ebola nurses, Bob Crow, take your pick). I'm pretty certain I've made comments about Trump's hair, is that any different? Probably, yes, I think so. It goes to his vanity and the way his extreme self regard has morphed into a project that will fuck the poor of America and beyond. But then have I/we been thinking that every time we've taken the piss, probably not. As always, its about context and blurred lines - however there's no conceivable way Hopkin's appearance should have come into this discussion.Oh yeah, context-free observation with no overtone of suggested humour, judgement or any other actual reason to make the comment. Absolutely, mate.
Yes, but Hopkins' lawyer lost so that means that Monroe's did win and the fee becomes due.I don't understand the claims of £300k+. According to the Guardian's story this morning, all lawyers were on no win, no fee. So Hopkin's own costs will be zero and Munroe's will be whatever she has been awarded, no more (i.e. £104k). Unless I've missed something out?
Where did you meet him, Isandlwana?
I don't understand the claims of £300k+. According to the Guardian's story this morning, all lawyers were on no win, no fee. So Hopkin's own costs will be zero and Munroe's will be whatever she has been awarded, no more (i.e. £104k). Unless I've missed something out?
You jumped in here looking for a barney.This is the piece I was talking about, , is when you quote the stones about time destroying a woman's face, I think that is retro sexist shite, illustrated by the photo of wizened old Keith Richards a man that time has also not been kind to. It's the point of - what relevance is Hopkins looks to anything?
I don't really know what you're going on about, so end of this from me
Where did you meet him, Isandlwana?
In a cave in Gondwana ~500mya. Sass was collecting taxes (in the form of beads) from people even back then.
I'm sure Monroe's lawyer was on the case.As it was a mistake why not just say sorry?
Much simpler in those day, if they didn't pay, you just brained them with a rock. We're supposed to persuade them to pay up now.
What a load of old shit. No one's judging and no one's laughing. Get a fucking life.
Milo, he looks good for his age (said no one)
So is this the second cunt that Cheesypoof has told us is just a silly rascal?
Where did you meet him, Isandlwana?
You should see pa with his mud pack onTBF, when Kris shared a pic of your facial wrinkles on facebook, we all laughed and judged you.
How do you know that isn't exactly what the lawyer recommended?I'm sure Monroe's lawyer was on the case.
Man that's a shit excuse, how did she pay so much for such shit legal advice?
Surely a decent lawyer would have said "probably should just give five grand to charity and say sorry"
What do you think of the claims being made in that article, weltweit?
The days of twitter being a free for all have passed.What do you think of the claims being made in that article, weltweit?
The days of twitter being a free for all have passed.