Originally posted by MOLLYS_LIPS my god,,edwina,,or norma,,see wot we had runnin our country,,1 blind fooking, idiot,,and now look wot we got?have u seen blairs 'wife''jezus,there'e even hope for me,,,,'blair witch'' more like,,god help us all from these feckin ejits,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,moll
Wot - all that nonsense I wrote joined up or the suing stuff?
I think the reason is this:
1. Major sued the paper for loss of reputation because reports of an alleged affair (with a cleaner) were found to be untrue.
2. In 2002 it was proven that whilst he wasn't humping a cleaner he was infact doing something much worse... humping Edwina.
3. The paper will try to argue that the identity of the co-humpee is not relevant and that because Major was infact having an affair at the time his loss of reputation today retroactively unsues themselves in this new action.
4. But this is rubbish because by dint of the fact that no one new of his affair with Edwina his reputation was intact when the paper sued him. Unless of course...
5. It may also be that during the trial Major announced to the court that he was a blemish free character etc...
Just my personal opinion, but I say, ALL politicians the world over, are in the game for what they can get out of it, not what they can put into it.
I would not put my trust in any one of them, and as for putting my John Thomas in any of them. Uggghhhh!