By Bones McCoy
#109868
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.
User avatar
By Boiler
#110556
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.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#110560
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.
By mattomac
#110563
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.
By davidjay
#110673
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.
By Oboogie
#110686
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.
User avatar
By kreuzberger
#110687
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.
mattomac liked this
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#110689
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.
By Oboogie
#110691
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.
Attachments
Lucy C Starmer pedo.jpg
Lucy C Starmer pedo.jpg (72.64 KiB) Viewed 290 times
User avatar
By Killer Whale
#110696
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.
Dalem Lake liked this
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#110697
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.
#110702
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...
  • 1
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
Meanwhile in Wales

A bit weird seeing an image where a lot of the […]

Those upon the political Right...

My old English teacher would have an absolute fi[…]

Labour Government 2024 - ?

I don't know if the Burnham news will finally[…]

Keir Starmer

What's the old saying about money and bullshi[…]