Mailwatch(ed) Forum

I didn't think she was anything more than a gob on a stick?

Boiler wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2026 5:11 pm I didn't think she was anything more than a gob on a stick?

She isn't, but that should be enough to get her sent back,.

Waiting for the pub in question to get a "No Fat Chicks" * banner.

* Yes, it's old, 1970's american origin I believe and grossly offensive.
But I'll make an exception for old gasbag Connolly.

And again - how has she avoided a recall?

I suspect she's avoided a recall because she's not saying anything worse than many others do in the cesspit that is Twatter.

Also, without disappearing into conspiracy theories, I always have this nagging feeling that a lot of people like her and her fellow travellers are being protected somehow.

How the fuck does she get a blue tick? Did she pay for it? Who is financing her?

davidjay wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 8:56 am And again - how has she avoided a recall?

You probably know the way it works- there are a list of conditions, and they're fairly usually fairly straightforward. Not to miss meetings with the Probation officer, that sort of thing- lots of prisoners with drug habits immediately do that, and go back in. Then there's "don't visit this place where the person you attacked lives". And obviously criminal offences.

I'd have thought she should have had a condition not to post at all on social media, but seems like she doesn't. I don't know what condition this would break. It's obviously libelous, but that's a different point.

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 9:47 am How the fuck does she get a blue tick? Did she pay for it? Who is financing her?

I assume for a grifter like her £11 a month isn't that much.

Of course Starmer wasn't but I doubt she has the attention span for five minutes to read something.

mattomac wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 11:25 am £11 a month isn't that much.

That's three pints in the Blue Bell.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 10:09 am

davidjay wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 8:56 am And again - how has she avoided a recall?

You probably know the way it works- there are a list of conditions, and they're fairly usually fairly straightforward. Not to miss meetings with the Probation officer, that sort of thing- lots of prisoners with drug habits immediately do that, and go back in. Then there's "don't visit this place where the person you attacked lives". And obviously criminal offences.

I'd have thought she should have had a condition not to post at all on social media, but seems like she doesn't. I don't know what condition this would break. It's obviously libelous, but that's a different point.

I haven't got much knowledge of the conditions but I would have thought they include something along the lines of admitting you were guilty and promising not to do it, or anything like it, again. Abusing all and sundry would surely be doing just that.

She's not committing another criminal offence though. Unless there's some sort of social media ban, which there should have been, I don't see what they recall her on.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 7:14 pm She's not committing another criminal offence though. Unless there's some sort of social media ban, which there should have been, I don't see what they recall her on.

Her libellous claim that Starmer is a paedophile could be incitement.

General cuntishness. The Communications Act criminalises the use of public networks to send "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing" messages.

Perhaps, she'll get a knock on Saturday, just ahead of wee Tommy's hate-fest.

Oh that’s this weekend… I was going to central… I’ll suggest south west London instead maybe a walk near Hampton Court.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 9:49 pm
Her libellous claim that Starmer is a paedophile could be incitement.

She doesn't say that.

That's not much different to stuff routinely said about Starmer, re the CPS early in his time not prosecuting grooming gangs or Jimmy Savile.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 10:11 pm

Oboogie wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 9:49 pm
Her libellous claim that Starmer is a paedophile could be incitement.

She doesn't say that.

That's not much different to stuff routinely said about Starmer, re the CPS early in his time not prosecuting grooming gangs or Jimmy Savile.

A child rapist is the very definition of a paedophile, a very different statement to the bogus claims about failing to prosecute Savile or grooming gangs.

I saw that as meaning child rapist enabler, which is bad enough in itself.

My old English teacher would have an absolute field day with that one. He'd spend half an hour deconstructing sentences, adding and removing punctuation and asking us to analyse the change in meanings, before gently leading us to the conclusion that the construction itself is the cause of ambiguity, and wholesale re-phrasing is required.

davidjay wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2026 12:22 am I saw that as meaning child rapist enabler, which is bad enough in itself.

Yeah, "enabler" is the word there.

I suspect that recalls are not always legally watertight. No to say they're not justified, I mean that somebody with expensive lawyers could challenge them, And they'll make sure she has expensive lawyers.

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2026 8:25 am My old English teacher would have an absolute field day with that one. He'd spend half an hour deconstructing sentences, adding and removing punctuation and asking us to analyse the change in meanings, before gently leading us to the conclusion that the construction itself is the cause of ambiguity, and wholesale re-phrasing is required.

Recasting, as my English teacher called it. Often...