Donate SIGN UP

Answers

101 to 120 of 188rss feed

First Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Last

Avatar Image
We'd really prefer you didn't guess. We'd especially prefer you didn't guess correctly!
13:49 Mon 03rd Jun 2013
What in earth would it be posted under on You Tube?
Yes, em. But she posted as if it were fact, not a guess, or a could be.

If Noddy, Big Ears and Golly were alive and well they could sue me if I said: Noddy, Big Ears and Golly enjoyed a threesome last week - ONLY if it were untrue AND damaged their reputation. If it were true, no sue. If all three were commonly known to be homosexual, inter-species lovers then no damage to reputation.

They could not sue me if I said: I think Noddy, Big Ears and Golly enjoyed a threesome last week.
well that is dynamite - if it is true. Just google Youtube and Downing St and you'll pick it up. I hope that he has his facts correct as he's going to have his bank account emptied pretty damn quickly, not least the penalties but the lawyers' fees.
Neti you must have seen the same one as me because like you, as I said, not surprised at him but amazed at her.
Me too, ladybirder. He must have some charm!
i wonder some don't think of the potential victims when the so called facts are proved wrong, some people may never get over it. The cases of men being accused on internet websites of being paedophiles for instance, no basis whatsoever, but as they say mud sticks.
Hard to believe all this! Pretty shocking to say the least.
I'm amazed at the running commentary . Nuff said!
im assuming the '' answer removed '' is giving the answer or a hint of the people in question ?
*Amazed at the running commentary on utube*
ladybirder: another couple of names have sprung up, really not very interesting ones either, and not a surprise. I personally think they are all at it!
em: an affair between two consenting adults is one thing, they have to carry the blame for that, but it is nothing compared to paedophilia which is a disgusting crime, and I agree that names should not be named in such cases until proven guilty.
hc, I think I am aware of the ones to which you refer, dirty beggars, but not surprised there at all!!
no idea if his surmise is accurate pusskin, but if it's the same stuff I've been watching, I'd be more convinced by the man's particular account of a sex tape's existence if he'd bothered to take the laundry and camping gear off the top of the wardrobe before he used his bedroom as a studio.

I really don't know why, but there you are.
The Ed is being over-sensitive. I gave a suggestion of where to google - that does not imply complicity on AB's or my part as I have made no overt or invert suggestion to who has been nobbled on this.

The "journo" making the accusations (and strong that they are) had better be really sure on this one, for if he is wrong, then his legal bill is going to be massive - i.e through the roof.

I come back to the fact that the Mail may be looking to try to counter the noise that the Tel and the Times have captured recently......
lol sloopy - it doesn't feel right, I agree.............
DTC, your removed suggestion (which also matches the "not surprised at him but amazed at her", "he must have some charm", "sex tape" and "camping gear on the wardrobe" comments on this thread) does *not* match the names that I have seen. Your two names would indeed be explosive, but IMO they're the work of an attention-seeking nutjob.
Ellipses. you may be right, it just doesn't convince me, and a sex tape? I think not, but the other two names that are being bandied about (although not on here) are much more likely and much more boring!!
That sounds more like the two names I have seen, neti :)
I agree, he looks like my idea of a nut job Ellipsis. Weird. But oh boy he's in trouble if he's wrong.
Was it one of my posts about Edwina that got deleted? If so, any idea why?

101 to 120 of 188rss feed

First Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Come On, Spill The Beans Someone

Answer Question >>