Because innocent people are being hounded by internet weirdos, not because his abuser and stalker were female.
Because innocent people are being hounded by internet weirdos, not because his abuser and stalker were female.
That's not his fault. He's the victim, and the Guardian article basically says that he should've kept schtum.
They've 100% found the stalker. I've seen her Twitter and Facebook posts, including a lot to him.Originally Posted by Yevrah
The male abuser though, the theories are weak as fuck.
Although I don't agree with people trying to work it out anyway, there's a reason why he decided not to name and shame which he could have easily done.
I'm sure they'd be doing the same if a woman spoke out about her own rape and stalking, yes.
Link to the stalker plz.
A lad I know met a bird once off Tinder, just one date, and she decided they were an item. It was mental, she managed to get into his house so she could be there when he got back, really escalated so quickly within a week. He had to get the police involved at which point she went all over social media telling everyone he was a scumbag abuser, she was fairly attractive too.
This is who Reddit thinks it is:
https://twitter.com/fionaha09210946
There are quite a few tweets replying to an old Gadd account in 2014.
Bloodstained horses on the rampage in central London sounds like it was fun. Shame they seem to have all been apprehended in their bid for freedom.
The first plane to Rwanda should be full of cunts like Valerie Moore
Haggered old bat.Valerie Moore, a local resident, described the sculptures as "totally inappropriate".
"If North Lincolnshire planning committee allow ... this type of theme-park installation in a residential area, surely they'd be failing the residents," she said.
Mrs Moore argued that one of the aircraft sculptures posed "a serious potential danger to life" due to its position overhanging her front garden.
"It is unsightly, not in keeping and rocks in the wind," she added.
Better than a couple of gnomes.
We probably should have let covid rup to get rid of a lot more of these old cunts.
Some of us said as much at the time. Golden opportunity.
Although those 'sculptures' are fucking wank.
Would have been a massive help with the pension crisis as well.
I was reading this earlier and just saw a bit on the news about it and I really don't know what to make of it.
My old-fashioned brain makes me wonder what we used to do with these twats? Just let them truant and then fuck them off with no qualifications at 16 or whatever? Is wasting vast amounts of money on them and in some way giving a sense of legitimacy to their unacceptable behavior really a better solution?
The head at my kids' primary is a bit of an old fashioned type, looks like he runs a tight ship and discipline/respect is mega, far more than their previous school. School has a bit of a bad rep with the SEN parent mafia, so they send them elsewhere, which strikes me as a bit of a genius modus operandi to make sure you don't get overrun by these cunts. Was one of the reasons we chose this school after there were loads of time consuming dickheads in one of the classes at the last one.
Anxiety and mental health really need to be got to fuck.
How the fuck is TTH meant to know the lived experiences and best ways to manage autism, you tit?
Ask Lewis.
Problem is you can't kick the kids out once they're there. If the school kicks them out, the parents almost always side with their darling angel who can do no wrong. They appeal to the local council and will win via the 'everyone has a right to education' argument. The school is probably better off if they do truant and whatever else.
The school tends not to be able to do much. The ever increasing numbers of diagnosis/EHCPs means the school budget is stretched thinner and thinner. They end up in the most part having to spend their time on the kids like in the article. It gets worse if you have kids who are active disruptors of lessons and such.
The simple answer is they should either be home schooled or sent to a specialist school. The problem with the former is that so many parents use the school as babysitter through the day while they do their job. They would have to leave said job to teach at home full time. This will lose them money, so they would rather fight for their kid to stay in a school and be a little shit.
The latter from what I gather you need a diagnosis/EHCP if not both before they'll let you in one and even then, there may not be space in the only one near you. From scratch that process now is taking an estimated 2 years+ to get to.
The answer to Niko's question is yes. They just let them truant. I had a few kids in my year that I saw about twice a year. What were they doing the rest of the time? I don't know. But they weren't at school.
"Home schooling" is a joke. It's used exclusively by wingnuts of various types. Political, Anarchist or Religious. Either way, get it in the bin.
Specialist schools need a massive funding increase. I don't know what's happened over the last 30 years, but the number of "Special Needs" kids being born is through the roof. I suspect it's related to people having kids so late on. The older the mum, the more likely disabilities are.
Last edited by Spikey M; 24-04-2024 at 10:56 PM.
Does a diagnosis of autism get you the full suite of handouts and support even if you are at the lower end of the spectrum? Because anyone below Rain Man sort of can't dress himself levels should really just have to get on with it and live life like a low-level weirdo, as those sorts of people, like most of the great men of history, previously had to.
I think you all need to show a little more understanding.
I think giving a kid a diagnosis also limits their readiness to mask it. "Well, I'm autistic now so my behaviour is excusable" probably becomes more common. It's a label and they stick to it like glue, rather than make genuine attempts to adapt. There's also the idea that it's easier to diagnose than it used to be. Does that mean they're more lenient giving it out? I understand it's still a long process but the idea of someone mildly on the spectrum doubling down on their traits could happen.
Like that scottish kid with tourettes absolutely abusing it
https://youtube.com/shorts/NFK-mK_pn...cVitionNf4l8_o
It's worse than that. Being a victim is a fashion accessory.
That's why 1 in 10 kids now identify as Trans.
That's why parents are trying to scam autism diagnosis'
The article blames this on delays within the NHS, which I'm sure there are, but I know of 2 kids going through private assessments right now and both have already been assessed by the NHS as "normal". I wonder how rife this is.
And those without a diagnosis just claim they have one. Or it's "anxiety and depression".
I could go on. There is no trait more desired these days, than being atypical.
My wife (who's a teacher) has told me about kids at her school who are diagnosed with "anger issues", which basically seems to mean that if they flip out and throw a chair after being told off, they can't be punished for it.
Yeah, one of my wife's friends has a son "diagnosed" with anger issues. Apparently it's a temporary diagnosis while they try to figure out what type of brat he really is.
This is just more nonsense caused by social media, isn't it?
It's the same way every twat you know has been diagnosed with ADHD now.
I wonder how many of these lot have shit parents who just stick them in front of a tablet all the time?
If anything, they're usually the type with helicopter parents.
Sigh. Let me just assure you, there is no 'trait' more desired than being neurotypical.
How's the website going?
Like with all things there's a balance to be struck. Lord knows there were kids in my school who would have benefitted hugely from a diagnosis. Instead they were just alienated and spat out of the system. Those kids were ten a penny though.
If they ever make a drama about the post office inquiry itself the Barry from Eastenders has to be a shoe-in for the role of Jason Beer.
The Van den Bogerd witch is getting hammered at the moment.
I'd missed this being launched but, I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
One step closer to robots taking over the World.
Shut up and take my money.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68899248
Laurence Fox absolutely fucked.
Is there a bigger spastic in the country than him?
To think he somehow got Billi Piper too. The world ain't fair.
It's nice to see him get his dues. With almost everybody (no matter how generally mental they are) there's at least something they say that makes sense, but in his case I've never heard a single word or sentence uttered that was anything other than absolutely moronic bilge.
As much of a mong as he is, this case is a weird one. Those people called him a racist, so he did the old Harold thing of 'Oh well if you can make things up then so can I', called them nonces, and then, like the Arron Banks verdict, the judge appears to have found that him calling them names is worse than them calling him names because he's Laurence Fox and nobody likes him anyway. That can't be how it works surely.
I think it is how it works, in that you can pretty much call anyone a racist, no? Whether it should or not is a different matter, but I can absolutely see why it does.
Without knowing much about it, isn't it more likely a demonstrable fact that these people weren't paedophiles, so what he said was an obvious lie and obviously said to libel/defame them?
The verdict was that he was unable to prove they were nonces, so bang to rights in that regard; but the judge also dismissed his counter claim that they were equally unable to prove he was a racist on the basis that saying something bad about him was less likely to damage his reputation because people think he's a cunt anyway. You could argue that the people he libelled being comparative nobodies would have a similar effect insofar as they don't have reputations to damage either.
Under cross-examination, Fox suggested there were contexts in which the phrase “I hate black people” was not racist. He said: “If a man is just released from a Ugandan jail where he’s been gang-raped by several men and he walks out and he goes: ‘I hate black people’, it’s a sort of understandable response.”
Asked whether it was racist to say “Black people in the UK should go home”, Fox replied: “Depends on what context.”
This is a Huntley tier legal defence.
Again, without knowing, was the judgment that calling him a racist would be unlikely to damage his reputation made on the basis that everyone already thinks he's a div/racist because he posts loads of div/arguably racist things and so, even without need to judge the substantial truth of the claims they failed the test of libel? They probably were substantially true as well.
He's just an entitled moron who's been brought up his whole life to think he's god's gift.
He is such a fucking idiot and those quotes just prove it.
Have Le Tiss and Joey Barton given their verdicts yet?
It is also dishonest to try and equivocate between calling someone a racist and calling someone a paedophile, and then give it the bigwho knew isn't this a bit unfair shtick, even moreso when there is a profile disparity between the people making the claims.
The Guardian report on is wall-to-wall quality it has to be said.
He is such a pillock.
He is a racist and there are quotes from him to support the claim. He has nothing at all to back up the idea that they're paedophiles. He is a cretin of the very, very highest order.
From that Guardian article.
During the trial, Fox dismissed the Black Lives Matter movement as “grift” and “a Ponzi scheme”. He added: “We’re all equal in the eyes of god, so all lives matter.”
Didn't BLM spend all the money donated to them on buying a load of mansions and shit.
Oh yeah, I'm sure the charity was a grift, but it's the bolded bit I take issue with. A sure fire way to spot an absolute moron.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote