This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
|
oh dear,....it's back,....zzzzzzzzzzzz
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
What I heard one of their lawyers say this morning is that they, along with everyone, must be aware of the law of deformation I didn't think that any of the suspects were deformed
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
... That is funny. I'm fairly sure that Mr 100% would not be interested in pictures of young girls.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
oh dear,....it's back,....zzzzzzzzzzzz It was a nice break.
|
|
|
I thought Hrolf (though not necessarily correctly) that the money had been paid to a lad? If so Mr 100%, was the first name that sprung to my mind. Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
That is funny. I'm fairly sure that Mr 100% would not be interested in pictures of young girls.
|
|
|
Originally posted by fish mitten
I thought Hrolf (though not necessarily correctly) that the money had been paid to a lad? If so Mr 100%, was the first name that sprung to my mind. If that was the case...
|
|
|
'Mega-rare lump of whale vomit worth £400,000 washes up on beach in Canary Islands'. Listen, we wouldn't know about these things without the BBC.
|
|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
'Mega-rare lump of whale vomit worth £400,000 washes up on beach in Canary Islands'. Listen, we wouldn't know about these things without the BBC.
Lanzo would have told us but didn't deem it HOL-y enough.
This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise. |
|
|
Originally posted by eagleman13
Here's a thought for you, 20-30 years ago the bbc was the paragon of virtue, unbiased reporting & the envy of the world for content. Now, just remember that your license fee money is paying these peoples wages. Does that sit well with everyone? Edited by eagleman13 (10 Jul 2023 5.22pm) Well re runs of real comedy shows are so saline now that this is the best we will get
|
|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
I didn't think that any of the suspects were deformed He must be talking about Hookes Law of deformatiion. I cannot think how it would apply in these circumstances as it’s about elasticity but you never know - there may be an angle but it would be a stretch. However a bit of breaking news is suggesting the mothers story is cobblers.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I don’t think it is true. What I heard one of their lawyers say this morning is that they, along with everyone, must be aware of the law of deformation so whilst allegations remain unproven and investigations are continuing they must be careful not to reveal the identity of the person concerned. I suspect that is exactly the same reason the Sun hasn’t named him and the fact they haven’t must raise doubts about their confidence in the story. Time alone will tell. In the meantime the BBC bashers will enjoy some free hits. That's my favourite misspell for a while. I'll let you find it.
|
|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
That's my favourite misspell for a while. I'll let you find it. It sounds really painful. Not a law you'd want to break.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
That's my favourite misspell for a while. I'll let you find it. No need. It's obvious and, I suspect, the result of an autocorrect on the device I was using. The meaning was clear enough though and seems to have been confirmed by the news this evening. I hear several BBC presenters are considering suing a variety of people on Twitter for defamation, so perhaps the caution by the BBC is understandable.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No need. It's obvious and, I suspect, the result of an autocorrect on the device I was using. The meaning was clear enough though and seems to have been confirmed by the news this evening. I hear several BBC presenters are considering suing a variety of people on Twitter for defamation, so perhaps the caution by the BBC is understandable. But why the BBC and why public money? Defamation is about reputation of people. Whoever is that presenter would have right of action not the BBC.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
And yet,....a lawyer appointed by a young drug-addict 'victim', warns against naming the alleged culprit and rubbishes the story. By my thinking, someone is anxious to protect their career and has spent money on a lawyer ,...and perhaps the victim needed some wonga,..and everything goes a lot quieter. The truth will come out eventually. You can't just keep paying off victims. The BBC has stated that the original request was stop the presenter from giving their son money Then suddenly the complaint became that the money was given due to (illegal) lewd photos. Nearly two months after the first request. The BBC also said that they could not get hold of the parents or the child to check the facts after the first request. I guess we can all take a view on this. It is interesting how much bandwagon jumping has gone on, certain members of the Government may not look too clever if the BBC substantiates its comments. I wonder why any Conservative minister might want to discredit and scare our national independent medium.
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.