Wish we could get them to come forward, feel like Daily Mail would love that after his hypocritical reaction and response about Alex Belfield....Ohh came back on to reply to this!
Yes, we do. At least one called him out re the dic pic, live on air, said how she felt, got subjected to a bit of blaming and shaming and was dispatched.
Show, of course, disappeared, as did Iain for a few days ( I think ). Though, of course, nothing ever really disappears.
You hear some great radio and remember it.
You hear that kind of call and for lots of different reasons remember it.
And, no.
Things take along time to changeā¦.
Iain Lee and Katherine Boyle #2
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Iain Lee Threads
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I'd love to know what tonight's Patreon Zoom call was like...
Won't have happened, can almost be certain of that
If that's a money back guarantee I want my money back - someone refers to having been on it in his mentions
Yes the statement is definitely from The Big G. Why would it not be?
The Big G clearly tweeted from the "y5mwqwrx4m" Twitter account that he'd also posted the same four page statement from his main Twitter account, which is "RichEmers", to provide authenticity.
The "RichEmers" account is from where I established The Big G had stopped following Eyan & Kaffbo.
The Big G would have his reasons for deciding to post on "y5mwqwrx4m" and follow up on "RichEmers".
I'm quite confident as to knowing what The Big G's reasons are for doing so.
Rambling mess? I'd say it's the exact opposite.
We should be extremely grateful to The Big G for going to the trouble of writing and posting it, rather than looking for non-existent criticisms?
Looks like an incredibly clear, concise, cogent, logical, coherent and laser focused condensed efficacious statement to me.
It's a hybrid between a witness statement/affidavit, rebuttal, counterclaim and clarification over facts.
Ok, class 
Tonightās homework is āHaving now witnessed a problematic psychology, based in perceived victimhood, (to the point of being prepared to lie to confirm that belief) operating in an environment of high conflict, how reliable would any victim impact statement be drafted by Eyan or the Covid pillow muncher Jezza?ā
No marks will be given for expressing any view about whether or not the Defendant supports Alex Belfield or Katie Hopkins. Itās irrelevant.
Tonightās homework is āHaving now witnessed a problematic psychology, based in perceived victimhood, (to the point of being prepared to lie to confirm that belief) operating in an environment of high conflict, how reliable would any victim impact statement be drafted by Eyan or the Covid pillow muncher Jezza?āNo marks will be given for expressing any view about whether or not the Defendant supports Alex Belfield or Katie Hopkins. Itās irrelevant.
@General Kim He tweeted the statement from RichEmers long after - and possibly as a direct result - we'd had that discussion.
Yes, the timings show The Big G did tweet on the "y5mwqwrx4m" account that he'd posted the same on his main "RichEmers" account after you'd questioned if it was genuine.
The tweets on the "RichEmers" account were tweeted early this afternoon when the originals were tweeted yesterday. So, as you rightly say, "y5mwqwrx4m" tweeted about the "RichEmers" account after the discussion.
So, yes they were questionable for a period of time. However, it would take some doing for an individual to fabricate this statement and successfully pass it off as The Big G's. The contents and style are just too accurate.
I think the contents could have been written by anyone in this thread, given the mass of speculation about these things in recent days. However, it turns out they were unequivocally written by Gregorian, which presumably means they're true.
As for his style, I'm only familiar with his short form tweets, so it wasn't immediately obvious to me. I have no doubt now though.
As for his style, I'm only familiar with his short form tweets, so it wasn't immediately obvious to me. I have no doubt now though.
I'd agree The Big G is known to write in a peculiar style when it comes to short form tweets.
However, it's been proved demonstrably incorrect that just because The Big G writes undecipherable nonsense in his short form tweets that he does the same when it comes to formal writing as a lawyer.
His four page statement is nothing whatsoever like his short form tweets.
So using your experience of The Big G's tweets as the basis of questioning if the four page statement is genuine or not has been shown to be unreliable.
"the contents could have been written by anyone on this thread". Really? Anyone?
If anyone could have written exactly what The Big G wrote in his four pages - verbatim and presentation style. Anyone.
Then, yes. It was valid to question if it was really The Big G who wrote the statement.
I can confirm that there is no way I could write exactly in the same style, content and presentation of what The Big G published. So that removes me from the "anyone".
Maybe there are people on the thread who can emulate The Big G's legal writing as a perfect facsimile and imitation?
I don't know if people can.
But I would ask how do you know anyone can?
I couldnāt have written that.
If I couldāve, I wouldāve, ages ago
Gregorian, as you would expect re his profession, pulled a blinder there.
Accurate, identifiable, measured, meaningful, evidenced. All the good words.
I guess that is how solicitors shout people out. Perk of the job.
My point was that, in terms of the factual content alone, there's very little in his statement that anyone who's read this thread for long enough couldn't have guessed at. But the fact Gregorian wrote it is hugely significant because it means a lot of the popular claims, opinions and theories on here are true.
You appear to be making a point about something thatās been cleared up now.
That's a new and different point.
The original point being that exactly what "y5mwqwrx4m" published (the four page statement) could have been done by anyone on this thread.
That means: wording up the statement word-for-word as The Big G did, presenting it in the identical way The Big G did and most importantly the content. All based on copying the writing style of The Big G's tweets - which is totally different to how he wrote in the four page statement.
If people want to believe "anyone" could have done that statement, then fine. It's their right to immediately jump to the conclusion that it was a set-up, ostensibly in a TLNA cultist hope that it wasn't true and Eyan is the righteous victim of a smear.
It's almost like a TLNA cultist can't bear the thought The Big G has exposed and blown the lid off Mr Eyan Lee.. and the undercover TLNA cultist was desperately looking for any excuse to dismiss and discredit The Big G.
The "factual content" on this thread doesn't come close to the content in The Big G's statement. So the point that someone reading this thread could knock up that four page statement based on what they've read is an absolute non-starter.
If anything, it was my speculation that turned out to be 100% correct. All of it. It was specifically my analysis that The Big G has confirmed as being correct.
I was speculating and got it 100% correct. At the time it wasn't a fact. Now it is.
So is it being suggested that it's possible someone read this thread, read my speculation, wrote that four page statement, pretended to be The Big G and emulated with perfect accuracy his professional legal writing style, thought processes and content plus added a load of facts that are not contained on this thread?
All in a bid to fool us.
"Could have been written by anyone". OK. I suppose anything is possible...
The original point being that exactly what "y5mwqwrx4m" published (the four page statement) could have been done by anyone on this thread.
That means: wording up the statement word-for-word as The Big G did, presenting it in the identical way The Big G did and most importantly the content. All based on copying the writing style of The Big G's tweets - which is totally different to how he wrote in the four page statement.
If people want to believe "anyone" could have done that statement, then fine. It's their right to immediately jump to the conclusion that it was a set-up, ostensibly in a TLNA cultist hope that it wasn't true and Eyan is the righteous victim of a smear.
It's almost like a TLNA cultist can't bear the thought The Big G has exposed and blown the lid off Mr Eyan Lee.. and the undercover TLNA cultist was desperately looking for any excuse to dismiss and discredit The Big G.
The "factual content" on this thread doesn't come close to the content in The Big G's statement. So the point that someone reading this thread could knock up that four page statement based on what they've read is an absolute non-starter.
If anything, it was my speculation that turned out to be 100% correct. All of it. It was specifically my analysis that The Big G has confirmed as being correct.
I was speculating and got it 100% correct. At the time it wasn't a fact. Now it is.
So is it being suggested that it's possible someone read this thread, read my speculation, wrote that four page statement, pretended to be The Big G and emulated with perfect accuracy his professional legal writing style, thought processes and content plus added a load of facts that are not contained on this thread?
All in a bid to fool us.
"Could have been written by anyone". OK. I suppose anything is possible...
No. No it isn't. We are mostly on the same page. This has been a pointless back and forth. Who could or could not have written it has been utterly irrelevant since the minute it was confirmed beyond any doubt who did write it. So, fine, whatever you say, can we actually get back to talking about relevant things now?
Like the 180-odd followers on Gregorian's Twitter who haven't so much as liked his posts or replied to tell him he's talking horse manure. Most of them will be past or present TLNA fans, as he didn't use that account for much else. Did Iain deliberately block WOTT knowing he would cry about it and thus scare the acolytes into pretending the statement doesn't exist?
Thatās got to be why. Many people like WOTT and whatever we think of him, politely replying to RG didnāt deserve a block.
It is very telling that none of the usual fans have unfollowed Richard. There will be DMs taking place that I&K have no control over. Their fans are silently reading everything that RG says and forming their own conclusions.
Next week either the whole thing crumbles and the reason given will be ānot getting the numbersā or it will be damage control time. If its the latter then I would expect a show before Thursday.
Gregorian wasnāt interacting with others for some time. When the shows were so infrequent, all sense of community vanished. Plus Eyan being called out as a liar by a solicitor on specifics - not refuted - isnāt territory his fans would get involved with. The Disney Adult Jumbo tried but missed the point - something about relative/comparative fears of Eyan being arrested versus fear of Alex Belfield. What that has to do with lying and back stabbing?
Patreon numbers down before month end can only be blocks. Surely Gregorianās top tier payment just gets channeled to a Patreon eager for easy cash to supply the link if heās not already embeddedā¦..and money talks.
Both Eyan and Kafbo are still protecting their tweets - not taking responsibility and apologising but victimising themselves further. Great role models.
Seems like Gregorian was withdrawing silently until Eyanās need for validation meant he couldnāt deal with that and plunged the proverbial knife.
492 Patreons even before month end means fewer shows - never more effort or if there is for two weeks before entitlement kicks in.
Wow, I missed all this yesterday. Great content to catch up on.
One thing's for sure and that is I'll never be using Gregorian for any future legal services. Not that I ever would have anyway, but his "lawyer writing" is awful! Someone should ask him to work out how much he's given Iain over the years. I always thought he'd covered that Ā£9000 vet bill when one of Iain's five cats broke it's pelvis, since Iain went from begging his followers to cover it to suddenly having the whole bill paid for. I assumed he didn't just find it down the back of a sofa.
Has Iain accused Gregorian of being in love with him yet? That's usually how a falling out with him ends.
Iain is definitely lying about never saying Belfield's name. I'd never even heard of the guy until that infamous phone call he made to TLNA, which ended with Iain and Katherine discussing who it was (using his name), and then afterwards whenever Iain received a nasty email he'd say "Just got another one from Alex" or "That's Belfield using a fake name again". Back in the early days of TLNA Iain would often engage with Belfield on Twitter to, so any followers would have seen who he was.
One thing's for sure and that is I'll never be using Gregorian for any future legal services. Not that I ever would have anyway, but his "lawyer writing" is awful! Someone should ask him to work out how much he's given Iain over the years. I always thought he'd covered that Ā£9000 vet bill when one of Iain's five cats broke it's pelvis, since Iain went from begging his followers to cover it to suddenly having the whole bill paid for. I assumed he didn't just find it down the back of a sofa.
Has Iain accused Gregorian of being in love with him yet? That's usually how a falling out with him ends.
Iain is definitely lying about never saying Belfield's name. I'd never even heard of the guy until that infamous phone call he made to TLNA, which ended with Iain and Katherine discussing who it was (using his name), and then afterwards whenever Iain received a nasty email he'd say "Just got another one from Alex" or "That's Belfield using a fake name again". Back in the early days of TLNA Iain would often engage with Belfield on Twitter to, so any followers would have seen who he was.
It is such an easy grift I just canāt see them ever stopping the patreon. Iām still amazed it took RG so long to see it for what it is.
Suggestion for the next thread title: Big Up the Gregorian!
- Status