"You have mixed stuff up. Free speech and FREE GOSSIP are very different. You belong to the latter. I'd say shut this gossipy website DOWN. Twitter got so many wrong mate. I work the patch - so I know........... THINK. Mr Reaper is no better than any tabloid trying to sell their stories FALSE OR TRUE........ hmmmmm.... So Mr Reaper (whoever he/she may be) goes to destroy lives of innocent people. Good luck. It has nothing to do with a free speech but all to do with speculation and GOSSIP. Wasn't that exactly an issue of Soviet Union?"
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
"A lot of people are put off going into town centres because of yobs swearing..."
Monday, May 30, 2011
"Am I the only person to think that there is something inappropriate about Sharon Shoesmith, the London borough of Haringey's former head of children's services, standing on the steps of the royal courts of justice giving the appearance of someone who thinks that she has been vindicated over the death of Peter Connelly, also known as Baby P?All along, Shoesmith has appeared to think that it is wrong she should ultimately take responsibility for the death of that little boy. She seemed to believe that she earned her £133,000 salary through the elegance of her report writing alone. And she appears to have no notion that the buck should stop with her and that there should have consequences."
Sunday, May 29, 2011
From time to time, I get some arrivals which could be described as rather bizarre, but this one probably has to be the most curious and intriguing for quite some time. Just over an hour ago, I came across this particularly disturbing arrival from the search engines. Because it's such a wide picture, I haven't been able to show it in its entirety here, so feel free to click it to see the full size version. Expect the unexpected, that's all I'm saying:
Sorry to disappoint, I suppose.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
by your Reaper in the past week or so. Go and read some of that, if
you haven't already.
In the meantime, I'm off to have something that is called a life. A
concept that probably terrifies readers of The Grim Reaper Writes, I
know. Anyway, I'm off to the Slane festival down in County Meath for
the day. I'll be surrounded by about 80,000 people listening to bands
such as Kings of Leon and Thin Lizzy in the open air, leaving
ourselves at the mercy of the hopelessly unpredictable Irish weather.
I'll have one motherfucker of a cold come Monday morning, methinks.
Normal service resumes when I've dried myself off. If you're lucky.
Friday, May 27, 2011
"I'm mortified to have to pay 50% [in income tax]! [While] I use the NHS, I can't use public transport any more. Trains are always late, most state schools are shit, and I've gotta give you, like, four million quid – are you having a laugh? When I got my tax bill in from [the album] 19, I was ready to go and buy a gun and randomly open fire."
The Grim Reaper.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
happened. I appear to be in agreement with a piece written by Laurie
Strange times we live in. I don't think much of the way Laurie seems
to think she represents everyone who is against the worrying
developments within government on abortion policy, but in this piece,
she's got it spot on.
Go read it.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
"I think that Barack Obama has got the next election in the bag, to be honest. Take the Irish-American vote. They're going to love seeing him in Ireland. Then take the anti-terrorism vote from the success at catching Osama Bin Laden recently. Those two things will only do good to his popularity."
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
"The Only Way Is Essex owes its success to a youth audience, a youth vote and incredibly good PR that ensures that the Day-Glo cast are never out of the headlines, whether they're falling drunkenly out of nightclubs or making bitchy comments about one another in interviews."
"IMHO, (as I believe they say on Twitter) everything which appears on so-called social networking sites is either wrong or motivated by malice. So I take any information I read on the internet with a malt shovel full of salt, unless it comes from a trusted source."
Monday, May 23, 2011
doesn't talk down to people, unlike some news programmes I could name.
"I am not interested in looking for that job"
"We have never received any public or private communication in the Government from Gordon Brown seeking to be a candidate for this position."
Saturday, May 21, 2011
"We have to find ways, do we not, to prevent the misuse of modern technology."
"Modern technology is totally out of control. I'm not giving up on the possibility that people who peddle lies about others through using technology may one day be brought under control, maybe through damages, very substantial damages, maybe even injunctions."
"We found ways to stop the circulation of pornographic pictures involving children and hunt down the people who purveyed the material"
Imogen Thomas is supposed to have had with... oops, nearly forgot, I
can't tell you his name. There's a bizarre injunction in place which
means she can be named, but he can't. It's an injunction which has
been widely ignored, and Schillings are now chasing up several Twitter
users who have breached it. Cunts.
Your Reaper can tell you the affair lasted somewhere between three and
seven months, depending on whom you believe. He can also reveal that
the footballer's wife has since found out about his cheating. She is
said by friends to be "heartbroken" but that is all I have been told,
unfortunately. It's not clear whether he has been dumped.
I've found this state of affairs very curious. It's okay to name her,
but not him? I don't understand that. If you name one, it's only a
matter of time before people work out who the other person is. Anyone
with a bit of know-how could have worked this out. Not that it makes
much difference in the end - in the case of ETK and X versus News
Group Newspapers, neither who were cheating have been named, but their
identities have already been leaked online. Hence why anyone with a
basic knowledge of how to use Google, Twitter or a couple of blogs
knows the name of the rat who Mr Justice Eady is protecting from
Either name both of them, or none of them. Naming just one makes no
sense. It only adds to the charge that injunctions are there to
protect mostly young men who don't want the public knowing the truth
about them. Surely we were meant to be moving towards a law that
provides equal protection to both sexes? If the case of the man who
paid for sex with Helen Wood (and reportedly had a dildo shoved up his
arse at the same time) and cannot be named is anything to go by, it
Considering the show he stars on, I find it deliciously ironic. But I digress.
On Monday, Eady revealed more about the story, revealing a number of
things that previously had not been disclosed. He had heard testimony
saying that Thomas was trying to blackmail the player. It was a case
of give the player £100k in hush money, or she'd go to the press,
according to the accounts he had heard. It was also revealed that the
player doesn't deny the affair went on, but that he disputes how long
it was. Why on earth was this information not released at the time the
injunction was granted?
Perhaps understandably, Imogen's not best pleased at being made out to
be a liar and a blackmailer. That's fair enough. I wouldn't want a
court to be told that I was blackmailing someone without an
opportunity to respond to the claims being made against me. Thomas
going onto This Morning yesterday, therefore, to refute the claims
made some sense.
And yet... I struggle to have much sympathy for her. Granted, the
footballer in question is a selfish, weapons-grade cunt for having the
affair in the first place, but it takes two to tango. The player is a
well-known name, so she must have known that he was a married man and
probably not the best of men to be sleeping with as a result. He's as
much to blame as she is, but your Reaper still can't help but think
it's very difficult to have sympathy for a home-wrecker who seems to
be increasingly resorting to attention seeking in order to justify the
Under the terms of the injunction, Thomas is banned from saying
anything which could result in his name being revealed. Seeing as all
the press and anyone with an internet connection can now easily get
the name, that doesn't seem as much of a deterrent. The thing is, that
still allows for a lot to be said that couldn't be used to be identify
Mr Anonymous. This claim of hers that she cannot defend her own name
"because I've been gagged"... I don't know why, but it doesn't quite
wash with me.
Mind you, I think all this proves what I've been saying in a lot of
injunction-related threads. Namely that if you don't want to be
branded a home-wrecker in the press or want to be the subject of a
kiss-and-tell story, there is quite a simple but effective answer.
Don't have an affair in the first place. You can't place an injunction
on something that never happened, after all...
Sent from my mobile device