It’s not really a stupid question. She’s moving from a house with a garden to a flat.. anyone would assume she’s not taking the dog with her because why would you change your living situation in a way that will negatively impact your dog?I’d answer the same way. It’s a stupid question what’s she’s gonna do w her dog … what was people expecting her to jsut drop him off at the farmers market. It’s her dog of course she’s gonna bring him along isn’t that obvious. Humour is subjective
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Bradley Simmonds (who has his own thread on here) recently moved from a house to flat with his dog. Considering how little she looked after him it'll be weird for her to have him living there but I bet she will. And then she'll give him to her sisters as much as possible.
I don’t care how nice her body is having leggings that far in your ass and that much sucked into your vagina isn’t comfortable
duck this entire video is SO embarrassing I actually cringed the entire time ew
she has done the absolute most to transform her body into the current y2k-friendly ideal. she always had a flat stomach and a big bum but now she's much skinner, doesn't have as much of an arse, and seems to have a narrower frame than before. TBH i think it's relatively easy for her as she stores unusually little fat in her stomach but i still think it's mad, like i get wanting to participate in new fashion but to entirely change your body to fit it is kinda sad esp. when she was considered to have a nice body anyway
jesus...so she is embarassed they don't have mre inclusive sizes... yet have literally launches a million clothes without addressing this.
Well domne for you taking TFL not an uber or your tesla grace
where will she park it in the new place?When did she start swearing so much, it feels unnatural from her. Also she went to the “shreddy offices” does she just mean the gleam offices lol
Also says after putting her hair in a scraped back bun with a hair mask that’s she’s learned more from Tik tok from her degree, obvs I get it’s sarcasm but I don’t actually get what she’s saying she’s learnt from tik tok here?!? How to put her hair in a scraped back bun?! I don’t have tik tok so apologies if I’m just behind the times haha
Let’s be honest. The dog hasn’t lived with her since he was 6 months old. He’s with everyone else now.
She’s only thought of herself and never the dog. That’s why she goes on so many holidays and just throws the dog on people. The dog is an insta prop to her
Last edited:
tbh i think she asked it of herself after seeing the speculation on hereI’d answer the same way. It’s a stupid question what’s she’s gonna do w her dog … what was people expecting her to jsut drop him off at the farmers market. It’s her dog of course she’s gonna bring him along isn’t that obvious
‘Insta prop’ is simply perfect 🤌. I haven’t heard the term before but it’s perfect. Grace’s dog, temporary friends, holidays, home (esp home gym, kitchen mirror, etc.) are all
insta props .
It literally shows 3 ‘standard’ glute exercises ffs…
also not even that optimal (glute) growth
also not even that optimal (glute) growth
Attachments
One would hope given the price she's likely paying a car space will be included. But developers in London are weird. Some of the flats for sale at Battersea Power Station don't have parking included eg. https://batterseapowerstation.co.uk/property-for-sale/a2R3z000002vC9AEAU
(some do have parking, in the even higher price bracket https://batterseapowerstation.co.uk/property-for-sale/a2R3z000002gdxCEAQ)
I used to work in a local planning authority so I have a different perspective, but developers have to commit to about 30% of their housing being affordable or social when they get the contract.
Typically about half way through the developer will cry 'viability', which involves them claiming the build has cost more than they expected, or sales won't reach projections, so they need to sacrifice some of the social housing to build more luxury and make up for the "loss". They might also pivot and say they'll contribute community assets in other ways, like building a garden or renting out units to local businesses.
The local authority is reliant on S106 payments from these developers, which are basically lump sums for community infrastructure that the council uses to keep things like transport, schools, parks and other services running. The bigger the development the bigger the cheque.
The councils are underfunded and desperately need that money, so if the developer pulls out or abandons the project they're fucked. So they say alright, fine, you only have to build 10% affordable instead of 30%, as long as it means you'll finish the project and pay for our local infrastructure. They know it's BS but the developers have powerful lawyers to fight their case and the councils.. well... Don't.
So this is how you end up with thousands of luxury flats in places like Battersea which are supposed to include affordable homes for local people, but in reality are bought up by foreign property investors (or mugs like Grace), and the housing crisis goes on.
Last edited:
god that’s horrific !
Yep, there are lots of loopholes, even things like building a "low cost" gym that will benefit the community
Also regarding parking spaces another project I worked on didn't have carparks and prioritised buyers who didn't drive so who knows
Please tell me this was one of you guys 
Wish I could nip like that at my grumpy clientsPlease tell me this was one of you guys
ugh so many things about this, one of my colleagues is dyslexic, she has a programme that reads her emails etc back to her to make sure they are okay, in this day and age an instra post with basic errors IS lazy, whatever Graze says. And.. then the random two excuses for it is hilarious. I hope her Oxford lecturers are proudPlease tell me this was one of you guys
- Status