Didn’t she say the Lapland trip was their Christmas present last year?She really has changed I remember the days she was struggling to feed them all .
she’s just done a comment on the Disney post saying the New York trip was the girls Christmas present and the Disney trip was the younger kids present ….. and apparently they ain’t getting “ much “ this year is she mad
most people are working double shifts and still can’t afford to go Disney land and New York !!
I was thinking the same she looked so so so young! It’s crazy and disturbing
But if they were presents surly you’d book for jan or between Xmas and new year. Imagine sat round the tree Xmas day “ you’ve not got much you went to New York” instead of giving it as a gift to go after Xmas.Didn’t she say the Lapland trip was their Christmas present last year?
Exactly, no way were any of these trips Christmas presents, just chances to show off.
Will we get a vlog of Xmas day ? I can guess exactly how it will play out all stood @ the living room door waiting to go in all you can hear is her saying bonnieee and heidieee
Course we will, not a chance they miss out on such a lucrative brag fest!
Wonder if sue will return any gifts that she’d already bought for the older girls, or keep them back for next year?
Surprise my arse! Lying braggards, they make me sick.
Yes you can. A director of a company may be a "silent partner" who just funds the business but has nothing to do with the day to day running of it.Are you even allowed to be listed under a job if you don't actually have that(or any) occupation?? Seems like it should be against the law
Lets hope we dont get too much wind, as i am sure her flaps downstairs would probably play a disturbing tune. She is so stupid that she would forget to edit that bit out and then need another holiday.
it seems to be an issue that is pointedly avoided in the TV shows, with Chris' year of birth glossed over, and no real discussion to the fact that Sue was a young teen when she became a mother. add to that the support they have from so many people who will fight to defend Noel, and attempt to justify his abuse with excuses like "oh, but it's totally fine because they got married and are still together!" or "it was normal back then!" with people giving examples of how child abuse was overlooked "in the past", as though this all happened in the victorian era, and not the late 80s. it genuinely blows my mind how happy people are to try to justify a man raping a child, and dismiss it as somehow acceptable - claiming he shouldn't have to face the consequences of his behaviour because he married his victim, and continued to impregnant her - which supposedly makes his abuse totally okay!
It gets even more horrifying when you find out that he met her when she was 7 years old. And they'd been having sex for awhile before she got pregnant, so it probably started when she was 11 or 12.
As far as I know this isn't actually confirmed so take it with a pinch of salt, but apparently Sue's mum spoke to a doctor who encouraged them not to press charges. Supposedly he said that making it "forbidden" would just make Sue run away with him. Personally if she was my daughter I would've turned his testicles into earrings, but her parents seem a bit gormless honestly.
I dislike sue, I hate Noel, and as much as I say about sue I would 100% stand there and defend her over the whole age thing. She was a child. She was a still is a victim which is why sometimes she acts like a childit seems to be an issue that is pointedly avoided in the TV shows, with Chris' year of birth glossed over, and no real discussion to the fact that Sue was a young teen when she became a mother. add to that the support they have from so many people who will fight to defend Noel, and attempt to justify his abuse with excuses like "oh, but it's totally fine because they got married and are still together!" or "it was normal back then!" with people giving examples of how child abuse was overlooked "in the past", as though this all happened in the victorian era, and not the late 80s. it genuinely blows my mind how happy people are to try to justify a man raping a child, and dismiss it as somehow acceptable - claiming he shouldn't have to face the consequences of his behaviour because he married his victim, and continued to impregnant her - which supposedly makes his abuse totally okay!
even on these threads, people who are generally critical of the family will often defend Noel, and claim that him raping Sue is somehow "different" to all other examples of child rape - despite her being a twelve year old child without the ability to give consent. it's beyond twisted that so many people support a child predator and argue against those who criticise him - and it's incredibly uncomfortable to know that channel 5 are totally okay to continue filming them for further series', portraying them as a happy and hard-working family - pointedly choosing never to mention the horrors surrounding the conception of Noel and Sue's eldest son.
What about duty to safeguard your patients , i think sues mum was chatting Shite there and trying to justify why she allowed it.
