I know right, they can't hack the fact people dislike her because her attitude stinks, they love to throw the whole you don't like meghan because you're a racist...Omg the sugars are out in force commenting on that one
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
No, it's because she's an ugly minge flashing ho. With carpet burn knees, and a rep as a deep throat expert.
Many reasons why I really like her, this is another. No fanfare required, can you imagine M&H doing this ....
It's austerity Anne! Princess refuses to pay for sea view to save herself £40 'because it's night time anyway'
When booking her room at The Manor House Hotel, Oban, the Princess Royal declined a sea view, saving herself £40.
Their new MWX Foundation stands for My Wallet Funding.
Sorry, looks like you have to follow to view. 'Tis a blind gossip IG
Last edited:
Oh Pom Bear you're a geniusMargot1977 I've made your pic
Ps had to screenshot your post as it's on the old thread also sorry on colour, my blue filter light was onx
View attachment 196227
Here you gox
Oh no it's come out crap it's took it with the fliter onFor Fox Sake!
I've tried to lighten it abit ....looks abit cartoony....View attachment 196230
fantastic!!! 
thank you.Edited to add: very Lion King-esque, spot on
Last edited:
Good one! I guess they've been reading on here
Benjamin Franklin and The Sisterhood - BLIND GOSSIP
[Blind Gossip] There is an old expression about secrets. In the July 1735 issue of Poor Richard’s Almanac, Benjamin Franklin said, “Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.” This TV actress is learning this the hard way. Her attempt to secretly promote herself has completely backfired...blindgossip.com
we said as much!
And it was over her face, which signifies virginity, so I’m told!
"Dont give him your name Pike!"
The shitshow for the reputation of the glamour girls and boys of 5RB (sounds like an experimental back rub) continues apace.
Warby will rule sometime in August whether the Five Former Friends (FFF) have "a super-charged right of privacy" (what the duck you might ask is that?) because they are (birdies tweet and butterflies fly) "young mothers" and "journalistic sources" doing the right thing by their much loved and widely admired friend who has been the victim of bullying by the baying racist mob that is the British public led by "Bloody Elizabeth" their hated monarch and her evil army of tabloid Orcs.
I could be wrong but - Good luck with that Justin.
We also now know a lot more about just how much money is being burnt in public here. She has agreed to pay nearly £70k of hard fought costs in respect of Mays disaster. Her own costs of that, a minute part of the overall picture, must be at least the same. Thats nearly £150k down the kazi. If as I suspect everyone expects, she looses in August thats at least another £150k. This is just on two small procedural Applications. The Claimant has also paid to write letters to the Mail; draft and issue a Claim; answer two sets of Further Particulars; consider a Defence and Reply and prepare for the next step which is a Directions Hearing. I would be amazed if shes spent less than £500k of someones money! The costs of the next stages and trial will take that into millions - and if she looses? Will it by 2% on Income Tax?
This is what happens when you give a showgirl your credit card and suggest they buy themselves something nice because theyve been crying. They come back with a Sikorski helicopter and a pilot who looks like Brad Pitt.
Just what is this litigation actually about? Its not protecting anything private. That bird has flown. Its not righting any kind of wrong and the Daily Mail (which is just loving this - the best PR campaign ever; its even managing to make the bastards look good) is unreformable. No this Claim was initially about money and vengeance and now its about protecting the identity of the FFF. I mean what the actual duck?
As clever poppet 50'sGirl (I cant do that underlining thing sorry) commented perhaps shes looking for an excuse to bail out on the grounds she is protecting her friends. In which context the line in her Witness Statement "To disclose their identities at this stage in public is an unaceptable price to pay..." sounds very interesting.
People get involved in litigation for various reasons. For us lawyers its just an often interesting but also dangerous and demanding job for the "Clients" its often existential. The worst problem of their lives: involving life changing sums of money, reputation, sometimes even liberty itself and at huge unpredictable cost.
The best clients are poor people. Its rarely their fault that they have got involved whereas greed and lies often lie at the heart of litigation for people who can afford it; they are a joy to work with and they are the only ones who are ever grateful. Oh and murderers. They are often perfectly happy having done what we'd all secretly like to do to someone who has pissed us off, and resigned to their fate.
The worst are the liars, the crooks, the fraudsters the common enemies of mankind. They often dont want to win and are undertaking the litigation to punish someone or because they love the drama or because they are not paying and have no intention of paying and being shits is what they do.
What do you think we are looking at here?
The shitshow for the reputation of the glamour girls and boys of 5RB (sounds like an experimental back rub) continues apace.
Warby will rule sometime in August whether the Five Former Friends (FFF) have "a super-charged right of privacy" (what the duck you might ask is that?) because they are (birdies tweet and butterflies fly) "young mothers" and "journalistic sources" doing the right thing by their much loved and widely admired friend who has been the victim of bullying by the baying racist mob that is the British public led by "Bloody Elizabeth" their hated monarch and her evil army of tabloid Orcs.
I could be wrong but - Good luck with that Justin.
We also now know a lot more about just how much money is being burnt in public here. She has agreed to pay nearly £70k of hard fought costs in respect of Mays disaster. Her own costs of that, a minute part of the overall picture, must be at least the same. Thats nearly £150k down the kazi. If as I suspect everyone expects, she looses in August thats at least another £150k. This is just on two small procedural Applications. The Claimant has also paid to write letters to the Mail; draft and issue a Claim; answer two sets of Further Particulars; consider a Defence and Reply and prepare for the next step which is a Directions Hearing. I would be amazed if shes spent less than £500k of someones money! The costs of the next stages and trial will take that into millions - and if she looses? Will it by 2% on Income Tax?
This is what happens when you give a showgirl your credit card and suggest they buy themselves something nice because theyve been crying. They come back with a Sikorski helicopter and a pilot who looks like Brad Pitt.
Just what is this litigation actually about? Its not protecting anything private. That bird has flown. Its not righting any kind of wrong and the Daily Mail (which is just loving this - the best PR campaign ever; its even managing to make the bastards look good) is unreformable. No this Claim was initially about money and vengeance and now its about protecting the identity of the FFF. I mean what the actual duck?
As clever poppet 50'sGirl (I cant do that underlining thing sorry) commented perhaps shes looking for an excuse to bail out on the grounds she is protecting her friends. In which context the line in her Witness Statement "To disclose their identities at this stage in public is an unaceptable price to pay..." sounds very interesting.
People get involved in litigation for various reasons. For us lawyers its just an often interesting but also dangerous and demanding job for the "Clients" its often existential. The worst problem of their lives: involving life changing sums of money, reputation, sometimes even liberty itself and at huge unpredictable cost.
The best clients are poor people. Its rarely their fault that they have got involved whereas greed and lies often lie at the heart of litigation for people who can afford it; they are a joy to work with and they are the only ones who are ever grateful. Oh and murderers. They are often perfectly happy having done what we'd all secretly like to do to someone who has pissed us off, and resigned to their fate.
The worst are the liars, the crooks, the fraudsters the common enemies of mankind. They often dont want to win and are undertaking the litigation to punish someone or because they love the drama or because they are not paying and have no intention of paying and being shits is what they do.
What do you think we are looking at here?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12260897/harry-meghan-charity-name-change-sussex-royal-mxw/ Have you seen this? Application withdrawn after 9 minutes?
Thank you Aunty. The "liar, crook, the fraudster" sounds about right
For Campagne:
Aunty still thinks theyre going to lose in August.
The Claim makes no realistic sense.
They have wasted probably £500k so far and it will get worse.
Rich people often litigate because theyre shits.
Aunty still thinks theyre going to lose in August.
The Claim makes no realistic sense.
They have wasted probably £500k so far and it will get worse.
Rich people often litigate because theyre shits.
I thought it was MWX not MXW
Actually on the "existence" of the FFF the jury's out on that. Only B seems to have actually done everything claimed of them "the ringleader" one of them is "an unsatisfactory witness" (usually legalese for caught lying) and the others too unimportant to bother with.....hmmmmm!Good evening lovelies X
Well, I'm a bit late to the party tonight (thanks to spending the day sorting out a leak downstairs for my aged Mother) looks like I've missed some right old musings of the murky Merkin variety today
Well done Scotch mist on the thread title, & thanks Palatine for posting it.
Had a quick speed read, think I've caught up - maybe! No judgement yet, the friends do in fact exist (for a bit I thought they were a figment of madam's imagination) and after the day's events the poor old judge has now gone off to lie down in a darkened room with a well earned brandy. Is that about the size of it?
After reading the Blind Gossip article and then Aunties, Charles needs to reel these two in before it begins to reflect on him because if they're using his money he's ultimately enabling this. I can also see that Charles may be thinking it will be money well spent if it opens Harry's eyes to her.
What a sorry mess she's gotten herself into, this whole thing is like a pressure cooker ready to blow, it just needs one of the friends to go public and reveal the calls, texts and emails and she's finished, a fact that's not wasted on her.
I wonder who will be first to spill the beanz? ...
What a sorry mess she's gotten herself into, this whole thing is like a pressure cooker ready to blow, it just needs one of the friends to go public and reveal the calls, texts and emails and she's finished, a fact that's not wasted on her.
I wonder who will be first to spill the beanz? ...
Having a go at Angela may well be her biggest mistake after the litigation.I’m sure they denied that tiara story originally?
Isnt she the one who also writes porn?Don't know if it's been mentioned in the previous thread but Professor Kate Williams really opened a can of worms by posting about Harry on twitter
I was CurlyWurlyTwirly on that thread. (I was there from the first one)I loved that thread, had it bookmarked. I too learnt a great deal. I don't think it's active anymore
However, I left and deleted my account as I used to call out Meghan from years back and used to get slated for it; came to a head when they left in January and people were still defending her.
Mumsnet is way too woke. I much prefer tattle!
and she looks fantastic in the uniform of an Admiral of the Fleet - actually she'd look great in tracky bottoms and velour jim jams. I'd better stop...
- Status