Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Judging from PMs I have received today, the leading married-shopkeeper-lothario has shagged 3 women on EDF and 2 others that I know in the neighbourhood who do not post on EDF. He has told each of these women that he is single and seeking a longterm relationship. For reasons as yet unknown (but soon to be uncovered, I am sure) he is very unwilling to wear condoms and has been known to remove a condom in the heat of passion.

BBW, red devil?


Not really. I just try and imagine a 'reasonable' case, and I don't think a butcher joke is in the same league as an allegation of sexual impropriety. We all rely on each other to catch ourselves if we're sailing close to the wind. I thank you for the reminder!


On that note, we'd probably better amend your note at the top of this page!

postmodern Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> He is very good in bed.


I'm sure.

But didn't his getting up immediately afterwards and returning home to the wife and kids* he said he didn't have take some of the bloom off the afterglow?


*I should of course have said that he got dressed between getting up and returning home.

I don't know the fellow or his missus, but even Mary Archer wouldn't have put up with Jeffrey arriving home stark bollock.

You're protesting quite a bit....


???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> no I'm f*cking not and my wife post on here

> too....seriously take your sh1tty, snidey

> accusations and slurs away or spell something out.

> Did this bloke turn you down or something?

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> But I never got chatted up much even pre-Moosling,

> I'm too scary. Sigh...


Oh Moos, don't be upset, I can't bear it.

Rest assured if you were a customer in a shop I owned, I'd have given you a dose of the clap for sure.

Now don't you be lettin' that Flick and PostModern be gettin' all up in your face thinkin' they're all that.

You go girl.

HonaloochieB Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Moos Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > But I never got chatted up much even

> pre-Moosling,

> > I'm too scary. Sigh...

>

> Oh Moos, don't be upset, I can't bear it.

> Rest assured if you were a customer in a shop I

> owned, I'd have given you a dose of the clap for

> sure.

> Now don't you be lettin' that Flick and PostModern

> be gettin' all up in your face thinkin' they're

> all that.

> You go girl.



PMSL! That gave me a good old belly laugh! Thanks!

bigbadwolf Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Spot on Huuenot, my depravity knows no limits. I

> secretly reckon that Felicity is awesome in the

> sack.


And your secret is safe with me BBW. No one else will ever know.

It's in the vault.

This made me laugh - I want to know who the sleazy, scummy clap spreader is - not cos I was thinking of giving him one - but just so I can walk past with a knowing smirk.


By the way if the guy isn't named, or you give him a nickname like clapper slapper or something, then you can't be done for libel unless you stick his pic up or something.


Here is a very interesting bit of rubbish I was reading from somewhere and I think it's pretty accurate:


You can't defame nicknames when people don't know who they are.


So, if you spread the same Dyke TV licence allegations but called him Big Beardo McFluffy, he can't sue, even if he knows you are referring to him - unless other people know him by the same nickname.


On the internet the rules are exactly the same. There are no special internet defences. The only advantage is that web sites tend to have a smaller number of users, (so less people see it hence it's less defamatory so it's rarely worth the bother of going to court) and allegations can be removed promptly on protest from a defamed party.


On the web, the writer, the web site owner and the ISP can all be sued just like the writer, the magazine and the distributor in the print field. A link could also be potentially defamatory if you are linking to defamatory material.


There is also a defence of 'fair comment' which is somewhat vague but is basically there to stop someone being sued for saying they don't like Marks & Spencer or McDonalds or Piers Morgan.


You are allowed to say that - even if you were a famous star or a very persuasive writer and it could damage them financially. That's the law.


However libel does not extend to the dead. Nor is being abusive libelous.


So I can say "Keith Moon was a smackhead lover of the highest order" and it's no problem. In fact I could say "every human who ever existed was a smack dealing, gun running, uncle fucker."


This is completely okay. That's UK libel!

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

    • And from what I remember, she eventually cut the tea shop for a similar  reason to chandelier.  Chariot style buggies
    • Oh yes, it could have been about there, I can't remember exactly. At one point there seemed to be a load of pizza places opening on NCR. I vaguely remember the one we used to use was put out of business by another one which opened. Wasn't Grace and Favour's food offering more of a tea shop at the back of the actual shop? If memory serves the owner, whose name escapes me now, was one of the earliest people I know to move to Hastings. Which must now be crammed with South East Londoners 🤣
    • That Neal Street veggie cafe was great. Food For Thought ❤️
    • Hi Dogkennelhillbilly, You won't be aware that i proposed infill sites for housing in East Dulwich - the garages on Bassano Street and Henslowe that respectively became 1-4 Dill Terrace family houses and the 78, 80, 80A Henslowe Street family houses. These were council owned garages and it was frustrating how slow the council was to go from my idea to completion (roughly eight years). East Dulwich has some other vacant WW2 bomb sites I'm guessing that the private land owners have been sitting on.Owe for a land tax for vacant land.  WRT to the builders yard by East dulwich station. Southwark Council has an agreed policy the area should remain suburban 2/3 storeys maximum. But the approved scheme is 9 storeys of student accommodation. Very hard to put this genie back in the bottle. The council has recently publicly stated lower ratios of social housing will be required. I will be amazed if the developer doesn't submit another application now they have the 9 storeys approved but with significantly less social housing. The less social housing the higher the land values. The higher the land values the less social housing viability reports state are possible.  If we really want to increase home supply - Southwark have over 6,000 empty homes. Vancouver charges a low % of the value of empty homes and rapidly eased this problem. Parts of Wales have introduced under Article 4 planning permission is required for second homes seeing within 12 months a dramatic decrease in property prices. Southwark Council have Article 4 requirements - why not add this one? It takes National political will to solve this AND regional and local authorities such as the second home council tax premium and these being used promptly. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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