Judge acquits man of controlling behaviour because his partner was too strong and capable to be affected.

by Syl Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:24 pm

First topic message reminder :

CAMPAIGNERS blasted a judge after she acquitted a boyfriend of controlling behaviour - because his ex was too "strong and capable" to be considered a victim.

The second female judge this week who seems clueless in regard to crimes against women.

Paul Measor taught their one year old son to tell his mum to Fuck off, and encouraged the tot to call her a slut and a slag.
He subjected Lauren Smith to daily abuse, both physical and mental, which included spitting in her face.
District judge Helen Cousins decided because his victim was a " strong and capable" woman this didnt have enough effect on her to warrant finding him guilty of using controlling and coercive behaviour.
He was convicted of common assault and sentenced to 5 months in prison.

Do these judges not live in the real world?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7808081/abusive-boyfriend-girlfriend-too-strong/

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:35 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
gelico wrote:

ah, i see, slightly different kettle of fish, i read it that you got your revenge and then just kept going after him for the hell of it.

i get it and all and although i couldn't have taken action in my kids situations i get why you did.

but also, and don't deny it, it was also for you personal satisfaction or at least you got a great deal of satisfaction out of it. anyhoos it seemed to have solved your problem

but my point is that did your daughter come to you? see if she felt she loved him and wasnt ready to walk away from the relationship, no matter how toxic, then your actions could simply have alienated her. if she's still being controlled she would have been on his side

you see what i'm saying?

she had already dumped him.....the abuse from him just got worse as time went on.......via texts etc....and she HAD to keep an open line because of the child involved.....it was very very complex and a very long standing issue....

right, so she had already taken stock of the relationship, realised it was a bad thing, taken responsibility and made the choice to walk away. good for her but she was ready so all help should be given. i support it and, as i said i fully understand your actions, even more so when a grandchild is involved. sorry state of affairs but if it's taught him a lesson then so be it.

hope things are better now

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
gelico wrote:

he was able to provide taped evidence of much arseholery and bastardry that would at least have shown them the character of the person they are employing

And the employers didn't give the bloke a chance to defend himself? Foul said he did it covertly, so presumably the chap didn't know that he'd done that. Any employer that doesn't give an employee the chance to defend themselves is a bad employer. Also, Foul implied that he knew people in one company at least, so there was a bit of backslapping going on there.

I simply do not approve of what Foul did re the employers - it was nothing to do with his employment, and he clearly did it out of malice and for no other reason.

Where did Lord foul say he could not defend himself

It seemsd to me, you are angry this scum got caught out

So what that it was covert, is that now wrong, when he abused someome?

Is that your argument?>

And gelico keeps defending this idiot?

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
gelico wrote:

he was able to provide taped evidence of much arseholery and bastardry that would at least have shown them the character of the person they are employing

And the employers didn't give the bloke a chance to defend himself? Foul said he did it covertly, so presumably the chap didn't know that he'd done that. Any employer that doesn't give an employee the chance to defend themselves is a bad employer. Also, Foul implied that he knew people in one company at least, so there was a bit of backslapping going on there.

I simply do not approve of what Foul did re the employers - it was nothing to do with his employment, and he clearly did it out of malice and for no other reason.

as he said, a means to an end and it seemed to have worked and he's not abusing her anymore

the whole point was though, she was ready to walk away, she had taken responsibility which was what you were talking about earlier re the woman in the OP.

only when that happens can anyone else really help

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:39 pm

Thor wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

And the employers didn't give the bloke a chance to defend himself? Foul said he did it covertly, so presumably the chap didn't know that he'd done that. Any employer that doesn't give an employee the chance to defend themselves is a bad employer. Also, Foul implied that he knew people in one company at least, so there was a bit of backslapping going on there.

I simply do not approve of what Foul did re the employers - it was nothing to do with his employment, and he clearly did it out of malice and for no other reason.

Where did Lord foul say he could not defend himself

It seemsd to me, you are angry this scum got caught out

So what that it was covert, is that now wrong, when he abused someome?

Is that your argument?>

And gelico keeps defending this idiot?

Of course doing it covertly is wrong - it's cowardly.

I do not approve of Foul dragging the man's jobs into it. If you have a problem with that, I can't help you.

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:40 pm

On thing is true

Wolf is right

There is a girlie gang on here

They never condemn each other and this is proven tonight

I am shocked, that Gelico, could back Rags on this ignoring all the evidence

Even after Lord foul explain his experince

Not once did gelico condemn a single view Rags made

Pathetic

Wolf was right, we have a pathetic little girlie bully gang on here

lol!

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:40 pm

gelico wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

And the employers didn't give the bloke a chance to defend himself? Foul said he did it covertly, so presumably the chap didn't know that he'd done that. Any employer that doesn't give an employee the chance to defend themselves is a bad employer. Also, Foul implied that he knew people in one company at least, so there was a bit of backslapping going on there.

I simply do not approve of what Foul did re the employers - it was nothing to do with his employment, and he clearly did it out of malice and for no other reason.

as he said, a means to an end and it seemed to have worked and he's not abusing her anymore

the whole point was though, she was ready to walk away, she had taken responsibility which was what you were talking about earlier re the woman in the OP.

only when that happens can anyone else really help

I don't believe he did it for that reason. How would getting someone sacked make them be nicer to his daughter?

If she had walked away, there was no need to do anything more.

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:41 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thor wrote:

Where did Lord foul say he could not defend himself

It seemsd to me, you are angry this scum got caught out

So what that it was covert, is that now wrong, when he abused someome?

Is that your argument?>

And gelico keeps defending this idiot?

Of course doing it covertly is wrong - it's cowardly.

I do not approve of Foul dragging the man's jobs into it. If you have a problem with that, I can't help you.

You think finding out that a crime is happening is wrong through spying, when it saves lives from harm?

explain?

I approve what Lord Foul did, as he has guts

He made sure less people suffered

by Victorismyhero Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:42 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
gelico wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It's a bit worrying that someone could be sacked on what someone else tells them. Regardless of the circumstances, those employers were pathetic and not worth working for.

he was able to provide taped evidence of much arseholery and bastardry that would at least have shown them the character of the person they are employing

And the employers didn't give the bloke a chance to defend himself? Foul said he did it covertly, so presumably the chap didn't know that he'd done that. Any employer that doesn't give an employee the chance to defend themselves is a bad employer. Also, Foul implied that he knew people in one company at least, so there was a bit of backslapping going on there.

I simply do not approve of what Foul did re the employers - it was nothing to do with his employment, and he clearly did it out of malice and for no other reason.

well I dont know the procedures with which the employers dealt with it...I merely supplied the information. one must suppose they asked him if he sent those messages......he could hardly deny it since they were texted from his phone......

oh and its hand shaking raggs...not backslapping Rolling Eyes

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:43 pm

Thor wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course doing it covertly is wrong - it's cowardly.

I do not approve of Foul dragging the man's jobs into it. If you have a problem with that, I can't help you.

You think finding out that a crime is happening is wrong through spying, when it saves lives from harm?

explain?

I approve what Lord Fould did, as he has guts

He mad sure less people suffered

There wasn't a crime, so your post is another red herring.

I think what he did was malicious. You approve of a lot of things which are morally wrong, so nothing new there.

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:43 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
gelico wrote:

as he said, a means to an end and it seemed to have worked and he's not abusing her anymore

the whole point was though, she was ready to walk away, she had taken responsibility which was what you were talking about earlier re the woman in the OP.

only when that happens can anyone else really help

I don't believe he did it for that reason. How would getting someone sacked make them be nicer to his daughter?

If she had walked away, there was no need to do anything more.

she had walked away but he was abusing her by phone, email, text whatever which i assume is what he gave to his employers. some things don't really have a defence do they? neither of us know what was in the voicemails or text messages but if he's still abusing her after she's walked away then he obviously felt the piece of shit needed to be taught a lesson and you kind of use whatever methods you can

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:44 pm

gelico wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't believe he did it for that reason. How would getting someone sacked make them be nicer to his daughter?

If she had walked away, there was no need to do anything more.

she had walked away but he was abusing her by phone, email, text whatever which i assume is what he gave to his employers. some things don't really have a defence do they? neither of us know what was in the voicemails or text messages but if he's still abusing her after she's walked away then he obviously felt the piece of shit needed to be taught a lesson and you kind of use whatever methods you can

He taught the child to abuse her

That is child abuse

Do you not agree?

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:44 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

And the employers didn't give the bloke a chance to defend himself? Foul said he did it covertly, so presumably the chap didn't know that he'd done that. Any employer that doesn't give an employee the chance to defend themselves is a bad employer. Also, Foul implied that he knew people in one company at least, so there was a bit of backslapping going on there.

I simply do not approve of what Foul did re the employers - it was nothing to do with his employment, and he clearly did it out of malice and for no other reason.

well I dont know the procedures with which the employers dealt with it...I merely supplied the information. one must suppose they asked him if he sent those messages......he could hardly deny it since they were texted from his phone......

oh and its hand shaking raggs...not backslapping

That funny handshaking? Say no more. I don't approve of that kind of thing, and clearly these employers are unfit to be employers.

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

well I dont know the procedures with which the employers dealt with it...I merely supplied the information. one must suppose they asked him if he sent those messages......he could hardly deny it since they were texted from his phone......

oh and its hand shaking raggs...not backslapping

That funny handshaking? Say no more. I don't approve of that kind of thing, and clearly these employers are unfit to be employers.

He taught the child to abuse her

That is child abuse

Do you not agree?

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:46 pm

gelico wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't believe he did it for that reason. How would getting someone sacked make them be nicer to his daughter?

If she had walked away, there was no need to do anything more.

she had walked away but he was abusing her by phone, email, text whatever which i assume is what he gave to his employers. some things don't really have a defence do they? neither of us know what was in the voicemails or text messages but if he's still abusing her after she's walked away then he obviously felt the piece of shit needed to be taught a lesson and you kind of use whatever methods you can

Well then she should have blocked him, or reported him to the police or something. I really don't see what the man's employment had to do with it.

I do not use any methods to teach someone a lesson - there's simply no merit in it.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:47 pm

Thor wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That funny handshaking? Say no more. I don't approve of that kind of thing, and clearly these employers are unfit to be employers.

He taught the child to abuse her

That is child abuse

Do you not agree?

Which child are you talking about now?

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:47 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thor wrote:

You think finding out that a crime is happening is wrong through spying, when it saves lives from harm?

explain?

I approve what Lord Fould did, as he has guts

He mad sure less people suffered

There wasn't a crime, so your post is another red herring.

I think what he did was malicious. You approve of a lot of things which are morally wrong, so nothing new there.

There was a crime adnd he was convicted

Do you disagree?

Do you think its not abuse to make a child hate their mother?

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:48 pm

Thor wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

There wasn't a crime, so your post is another red herring.

I think what he did was malicious. You approve of a lot of things which are morally wrong, so nothing new there.

There was a crime adnd he was convicted

Do you disagree?

Do you think its not abuse to make a child hate their mother?

I'm talking about Foul's situation, not the situation in the article. You're getting confused.

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thor wrote:

He taught the child to abuse her

That is child abuse

Do you not agree?

Which child are you talking about now?

This child

Paul Measor taught their one year old son to tell his mum to Fuck off, and encouraged the tot to call her a slut and a slag.

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:49 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thor wrote:

There was a crime adnd he was convicted

Do you disagree?

Do you think its not abuse to make a child hate their mother?

I'm talking about Foul's situation, not the situation in the article. You're getting confused.

So the child does not matter to you then?

Or the parents?

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:49 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
gelico wrote:

she had walked away but he was abusing her by phone, email, text whatever which i assume is what he gave to his employers. some things don't really have a defence do they? neither of us know what was in the voicemails or text messages but if he's still abusing her after she's walked away then he obviously felt the piece of shit needed to be taught a lesson and you kind of use whatever methods you can

Well then she should have blocked him, or reported him to the police or something. I really don't see what the man's employment had to do with it.

I do not use any methods to teach someone a lesson - there's simply no merit in it.

a) there is a child involved so no she couldn't
b) big balls already stated that his abuse wasn't enough to be a criminal conviction

there's clearly merit in it if it does the job and stops the abuse

he has also said that now that he has stopped the abuse if he went and got another job he wouldn't go after him and try and ruin it so,,,,,,,

by Victorismyhero Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:51 pm

oh dear...morals....

the smell of sanctimony pervades the air....

smells just like antimony ...garlic......with the added odour of first rate bullshit

what kind of morals condone a man psychologically abusing a woman, yet rail when the abuser is abused.......

and what you approve of or otherwise is irrelevant.....these things are merely tools to be used.

answer me this raggs....would you break the law to protect someone from greater harm

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:52 pm

gelico wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then she should have blocked him, or reported him to the police or something. I really don't see what the man's employment had to do with it.

I do not use any methods to teach someone a lesson - there's simply no merit in it.

a) there is a child involved so no she couldn't
b) big balls already stated that his abuse wasn't enough to be a criminal conviction

there's clearly merit in it if it does the job and stops the abuse

he has also said that now that he has stopped the abuse if he went and got another job he wouldn't go after him and try and ruin it so,,,,,,,

You think teaching child to call his mother a slut and a slag is okay?

He admits the abuse

You agree to this

So what is yourt recommendation?

Forget this ever happened, as you seem to suggest?

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:52 pm

gelico wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then she should have blocked him, or reported him to the police or something. I really don't see what the man's employment had to do with it.

I do not use any methods to teach someone a lesson - there's simply no merit in it.

a) there is a child involved so no she couldn't
b) big balls already stated that his abuse wasn't enough to be a criminal conviction

there's clearly merit in it if it does the job and stops the abuse

he has also said that now that he has stopped the abuse if he went and got another job he wouldn't go after him and try and ruin it so,,,,,,,

Nah, I'm not buying it. I simply don't believe that Foul believed that getting the man sacked would make a difference - he did it out of revenge. I also don't really believe that Foul has so much power - he must surely run out of companies where they do the funny handshake.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:54 pm

Lord Foul wrote:oh dear...morals....

the smell of sanctimony pervades the air....

smells just like antimony ...garlic......with the added odour of first rate bullshit

what kind of morals condone a man psychologically abusing a woman, yet rail when the abuser is abused.......

and what you approve of or otherwise is irrelevant.....these things are merely tools to be used.

answer me this raggs....would you break the law to protect someone from greater harm

I'm actually beginning to think you're bullshitting. I don't think you're as important as you think you are, and I don't think you have that much influence over so many companies.

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:54 pm

Lord Foul wrote:oh dear...morals....

the smell of sanctimony pervades the air....

smells just like antimony ...garlic......with the added odour of first rate bullshit

what kind of morals condone a man psychologically abusing a woman, yet rail when the abuser is abused.......

and what you approve of or otherwise is irrelevant.....these things are merely tools to be used.

answer me this raggs....would you break the law to protect someone from greater harm

I have given up with the pair of them

They are arguing politics here and not seeing the abuse

I cannot believe Gelico would be so dumb and still defend Rags

That is her choice and she still defends abuse

We are both against PC and yet Gelico is ignorant here

I guess some people are dogmatic

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:54 pm

didge is clearly confused between my own conversation with lord foul with regard to his own personal situation and the article in the OP. I'll leave him to figure things out on his own, if he can

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:55 pm

Thor wrote:
gelico wrote:

a) there is a child involved so no she couldn't
b) big balls already stated that his abuse wasn't enough to be a criminal conviction

there's clearly merit in it if it does the job and stops the abuse

he has also said that now that he has stopped the abuse if he went and got another job he wouldn't go after him and try and ruin it so,,,,,,,

You think teaching child to call his mother a slut and a slag is okay?

He admits the abuse

You agree to this

So what is yourt recommendation?

Forget this ever happened, as you seem to suggest?

Now again do Gelico or Rags defend this?

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:56 pm

gelico wrote:
didge is clearly confused between my own conversation with lord foul with regard to his own personal situation and the article in the OP. I'll leave him to figure things out on his own, if he can

There is no confusion

You are a coward

How is telling and teaching a child a toddler, that her mother is a slag and slut okay?

Is that not child abuse?

by Victorismyhero Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:57 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
gelico wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then she should have blocked him, or reported him to the police or something. I really don't see what the man's employment had to do with it.

I do not use any methods to teach someone a lesson - there's simply no merit in it.

a) there is a child involved so no she couldn't
b) big balls already stated that his abuse wasn't enough to be a criminal conviction

there's clearly merit in it if it does the job and stops the abuse

he has also said that now that he has stopped the abuse if he went and got another job he wouldn't go after him and try and ruin it so,,,,,,,

Nah, I'm not buying it. I simply don't believe that Foul believed that getting the man sacked would make a difference - he did it out of revenge. I also don't really believe that Foul has so much power - he must surely run out of companies where they do the funny handshake.

Judge acquits man of controlling behaviour because his partner was too strong and capable to be affected. - Page 4 3489511464

you have no idea of how the world of business runs do you....I dont NEED to know EVERYONE........just a few, in the right places......
you think what I did was dirty...god if you only knew.......

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:57 pm

gelico wrote:
didge is clearly confused between my own conversation with lord foul with regard to his own personal situation and the article in the OP. I'll leave him to figure things out on his own, if he can

Yes he is confused - he has no idea which case he's talking about.

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
gelico wrote:
didge is clearly confused between my own conversation with lord foul with regard to his own personal situation and the article in the OP. I'll leave him to figure things out on his own, if he can

Yes he is confused - he has no idea which case he's talking about.

Weel lets ask you

There is no confusion

You are a coward

How is telling and teaching a child a toddler, that her mother is a slag and slut okay?

Is that not child abuse?

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
gelico wrote:

a) there is a child involved so no she couldn't
b) big balls already stated that his abuse wasn't enough to be a criminal conviction

there's clearly merit in it if it does the job and stops the abuse

he has also said that now that he has stopped the abuse if he went and got another job he wouldn't go after him and try and ruin it so,,,,,,,

Nah, I'm not buying it. I simply don't believe that Foul believed that getting the man sacked would make a difference - he did it out of revenge. I also don't really believe that Foul has so much power - he must surely run out of companies where they do the funny handshake.

I don't doubt for amoment that there was an element of revenge and I don't blame him tbh

it doesnt take any 'power' to provide taped evidence of abuse

the companies obviously listened to it, i should imagined questioned him and maybe didn't like/accept his answers.

i've got no sympathy for him whatsoever and like i said if he doesn't like people shitting on him then maybe he should stop shitting on his ex wife eh? what about that for an idea?

besides if he's qualified he will get another job even if he has to go further afield so he just needs to be aware of how he treats people in future, call it karma if you like

funny handshake? you're starting to sound paranoid

by Guest Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:59 pm

I think Rags and Gelico are full of shit and cowards

So I will ask again and lets see an answer

There is no confusion

They are cowards

How is telling and teaching a child a toddler, that her mother is a slag and slut okay?

Is that not child abuse?

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:00 am

gelico wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Nah, I'm not buying it. I simply don't believe that Foul believed that getting the man sacked would make a difference - he did it out of revenge. I also don't really believe that Foul has so much power - he must surely run out of companies where they do the funny handshake.

I don't doubt for amoment that there was an element of revenge and I don't blame him tbh

it doesnt take any 'power' to provide taped evidence of abuse

the companies obviously listened to it, i should imagined questioned him and maybe didn't like/accept his answers.

i've got no sympathy for him whatsoever and like i said if he doesn't like people shitting on him then maybe he should stop shitting on his ex wife eh? what about that for an idea?

besides if he's qualified he will get another job even if he has to go further afield so he just needs to be aware of how he treats people in future, call it karma if you like

funny handshake? you're starting to sound paranoid

Foul knows what I mean about the funny handshake. He'll be kissing a turkey's bottom next. Surprised

by Guest Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:01 am

Thor wrote:I think Rags and Gelico are full of shit and cowards

So I will ask again and lets see an answer

There is no confusion

They are cowards

How is telling and teaching a child a toddler, that her mother is a slag and slut okay?

Is that not child abuse?

Still no answer

by JulesV Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:04 am

It's not always easy and straightforward to just pack your bags and leave an abusive partner. There can be many obstacles especially when children are involved.

As regards having children with a cruel partner, there is no excuse. Having control of your fertility is crucial and one of the very basic skills every woman should have, they should be taught birth control at school, long before they start a sex life.

by Guest Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:05 am

Thor wrote:
Thor wrote:I think Rags and Gelico are full of shit and cowards

So I will ask again and lets see an answer

There is no confusion

They are cowards

How is telling and teaching a child a toddler, that her mother is a slag and slut okay?

Is that not child abuse?

Still no answer

aw poor didge, still screaming for attention, well ok, since i'm in such a good mood i'll play nicely with you

How is telling and teaching a child a toddler, that her mother is a slag and slut okay?

It isn't

Is that not child abuse?

yes

there you go, poppet, you got your answer

all better now?

by Guest Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:07 am

Jules wrote:It's not always easy and straightforward to just pack your bags and leave an abusive partner. There can be many obstacles especially when children are involved.

As regards having children with a cruel partner, there is no excuse. Having control of your fertility is crucial and one of the very basic skills every woman should have, and be taught at school.

A sensible answer, but sadly, some here need to blame others

With Gelico, she needs to get an orgaism over seeing Tommy Robinson and Rags, over a pair of plimsolls.

Some people have needs. sadly so, and are followers

They are led by negativity

As its easier to blame others

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:08 am

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Nah, I'm not buying it. I simply don't believe that Foul believed that getting the man sacked would make a difference - he did it out of revenge. I also don't really believe that Foul has so much power - he must surely run out of companies where they do the funny handshake.

you have no idea of how the world of business runs do you....I dont NEED to know EVERYONE........just a few, in the right places......
you think what I did was dirty...god if you only knew.......

All I can say is that I like to play by the rules.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:08 am

Thor wrote:
Jules wrote:It's not always easy and straightforward to just pack your bags and leave an abusive partner. There can be many obstacles especially when children are involved.

As regards having children with a cruel partner, there is no excuse. Having control of your fertility is crucial and one of the very basic skills every woman should have, and be taught at school.

A sensible answer, but sadly, some here need to blame others

With Gelico, she needs to get an orgaism over seeing Tommy Robinson and Rags, over a pair of plimsolls.

Some people have needs. sadly so, and are followers

They are led by negativity

As its easier to blame others

Me and Tommy Robinson over a pair a plimsolls? What sort of nonsense is that?

by Guest Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:10 am

gelico wrote:
Thor wrote:

Still no answer

aw poor didge, still screaming for attention, well ok, since i'm in such a good mood i'll play nicely with you

How is telling and teaching a child a toddler, that her mother is a slag and slut okay?

It isn't

Is that not child abuse?

yes

there you go, poppet, you got your answer

all better now?

How am I screaming for attention gelico

I asked you to condemned poor views and eventually you did

You then make a mockery of this as a joke

If you think its a joke no problem

One thing, I dont need your attention

You are past your sell by date

See how nasty that is?

That is tame, but you question with no idea what this mother has gone through

Grow up Gelico

by Guest Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:11 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thor wrote:

A sensible answer, but sadly, some here need to blame others

With Gelico, she needs to get an orgaism over seeing Tommy Robinson and Rags, over a pair of plimsolls.

Some people have needs. sadly so, and are followers

They are led by negativity

As its easier to blame others

Me and Tommy Robinson over a pair a plimsolls? What sort of nonsense is that?

Ask Gelico

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:12 am

How can a woman be past her sell by date?

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:12 am

Thor wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Me and Tommy Robinson over a pair a plimsolls? What sort of nonsense is that?

Ask Gelico

Why? You're the one who said it.

by Guest Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:12 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thor wrote:

A sensible answer, but sadly, some here need to blame others

With Gelico, she needs to get an orgaism over seeing Tommy Robinson and Rags, over a pair of plimsolls.

Some people have needs. sadly so, and are followers

They are led by negativity

As its easier to blame others

Me and Tommy Robinson over a pair a plimsolls? What sort of nonsense is that?

if that's the best didge's imagination can come up with then i'm sorely disappointed, that's what

Judge acquits man of controlling behaviour because his partner was too strong and capable to be affected. - Page 4 3489511464

by Guest Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:13 am

Raggamuffin wrote:How can a woman be past her sell by date?

Fugly

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:14 am

Thor wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:How can a woman be past her sell by date?

Fugly

What does that mean?

by Guest Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:14 am

gelico wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Me and Tommy Robinson over a pair a plimsolls? What sort of nonsense is that?

if that's the best didge's imagination can come with then i'm sorely disappointed, that's what

It was never even a joke Gelico

The sad reality is you idoloize him

The sad fact is you never challenge any women poster here

I think I lent you my balls

All the best

by Guest Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:15 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thor wrote:

Fugly

What does that mean?

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:15 am

gelico wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Me and Tommy Robinson over a pair a plimsolls? What sort of nonsense is that?

if that's the best didge's imagination can come up with then i'm sorely disappointed, that's what

I haven't worn plimsolls for years, and certainly not in the presence of Tommy Robinson. Laughing

by Sponsored content