Jump to content

Recommended Posts

#1: it was in private grounds were there were NO CHILDREN

#2: it was not shoved in any childrens faces...... so no children were corrupted....unless theres any kids on here which i highly doubt! seems to be all over 18's..... but even if there were there was clear warning!its someones own decision to clickon a link saying "sexual"its quite clear its not going to be clean!

Well untamed stylist,it was no longer private when you put it on the forum.

I know quite a number of kids that go on this forum,so,its a for sure they clicked on to it.

So where will your artistic pursuits extend to next. will you be styling your customers hair into a phallic

symbol.

This thread, the rampant rabbit before it, and the katie girl-kissing one before that...


They all remind me of slack jawed gibbons in Borneo drooling as they pointlessly and listlessly pulled at their sex organs.


Oooooh, loook. Vagina. *titters*. NOB *titters* bumsex *gurgles*


What a waste of space. Pathetic.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • It’s a 4 year old on a bike do you really think he is going 15mph. Grown adults complaining about a child who probably isn’t able to string a few sentences together says a lot about the people in this forum. If this member was hit from behind the father was probably walking behind the bike so I don’t get the point of stretching out an overreaction from a child in Nursery bumping into you. Grow up Obviously a four year old should be cycling on the pavement.
    • Malumbu,  if none of us were there, does that mean that nobody should post anything on here unless they have witnesses from the EDF? Why would someone post something like this if it  wasn't true? This is not about whether children should or should not be cycling on the pavement. There are specific issues. a) the child was out of sight of the person supposed to be caring for him b) he appears to have been  either not looking where he was going or was out of control of the bike c) if he did see that he was about to hit someone  he apparently did not give them any kind of warning  d)  a person was unexpectedly hit from behind whilst just walking along, which in my view makes him a victim e) does the title of the thread really matter as the issue was described in the first post?  f) nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? The OP was not complaining about the 4 year old. They were complaining about an adult's lack of supervision of a 4 year old who was not capable of riding a bike and who hit someone from behind with no warning. Also, apart from reading the OP more carefully, perhaps also choose your words more carefully. Jobless? Lunatic? Charming.
    • Completely jobless and lunatic behaviour coming on a forum and complaining about a 4 year old and the child’s bike riding skills. Honestly grow up
    • I have to say, I too am upset about the passing of DulwichFox. He was a real local character, who unlike me, managed to stick with ED despite all of the nauseous yuppification of the last three decades. R.I.P to foxy    Louisa. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...