Rupert’s Mummy to the Rescue!

We mentioned last week that Rupert, the hilariously unfunny iPhone ‘videographer’ with the unfortunate moustache and drug habit, had sort-of announced that he might, all other things being equal, be showing up in London at some point this summer.

However, it seems he decided to make a brief stopover in Amsterdam, where he’s been making good use of Angie’s alleged sister’s alleged inheritance money to enjoy the local herbal fare.

Our friend Gabriella Barney was kind enough to send Rupert a link to our last post about him, to which he responded with his usual intellectual grace and savoir-faire: Rupert answers Hoaxtead 2016-06-17He made various noises about knowing kung fu, which we confess made us giggle; but our favourite bit was when his mother took up the cudgel on his behalf.

Apparently she objected to our characterisation of his videos as ‘amateurish’:Rupert's mummy steps in 2016-06-17Because that’s a sure way to impress those whose doors you have threatened to kick down: call in your mummy to let your opponents know who’s who and what’s what.

Karen DeLashmitt Quaintance: Amateur video?!? Really?!? I’ve never seen an amateur video from Rupert and I’ve known him a hell of a lot longer than any of you! Your threats are ridiculous.

Perhaps she means she’s never actually seen a video from Rupert. Because if his videos are professional quality, we fear for the future of videography as a whole.

In any case, we’re sure that Gabriella was duly chastened, and will never pick on poor Rupert again.

Actually, perhaps Rupert should consider asking his mother to join him in London. She’d be a great asset while he’s here: she’d take on all comers and let them know that they can’t say unkind things about her boy.

One thing, though: we wonder if she knows kung fu?Rupert Summer Adventure

54 thoughts on “Rupert’s Mummy to the Rescue!

  1. 35 years ago I invested in a pal’s wedding video business. We did fanatically well considering it was basically part-time on weekends. But by 2000 we gave it up as video cameras had become so inexpensive & commonplace at weddings and ‘amateurs’ in families were doing such a good job that hiring professionals was no longer necessary. (my friend went on to become a highly successful & well known film director).

    I almost weep watching this goose Rupert and all those others who think that by making a video ( on his $28 tripod lol) and putting it on Youtube & getting a few thousand hits means they are professionals. I’ve taken videos on my smart phone at certain functions, put them on Youtube and got 1000s of hits over a year but what does it mean? Nothing much really.

    Mummy’s response just shows that nuttiness runs in the entire Q Family.

    ## I’ve said on here before : Lou Lotus/Neelu is one of the best smart phone film operators in the business and she almost makes steadicam redundant. No $28 tripods needed by Neelu.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Has he had a few thousand hits? Wow. People really are hard up for things to watch.

      Unless of course most of them are his mum, who seems quite enamoured of his work.

      Like

      • Unlike a cinema where you pay to watch a film, it’s impossible to tell if a Youtube video is loved or hated as we have all clicked on one and been instantly bored and moved on but the ‘view’ is recorded.

        But you mind your tongue as Rupert ” Kung Fu Panda” Q may be in London soon and track you down in your local pub.

        Liked by 1 person

    • LOL! – If you analyse the professional video production trade as it is today you’ll find they have a slightly different perspective.

      For a start, as a PR professional, I would almost-never hire a ‘Videographer’. I wouldn’t even suggest somebody IS one unless I was deliberately insulting them! It’s a title that will cause any serious/credible video producer and/or DOP to choke on their impenetrably-named six-quid-a-cup coffee spilling it all over their Jeffrey Wests!!

      ‘Videography’ is a trade, the ‘professional association’ (LOL!) for which will/would (at one time at least) basically sell you pseudo-academic post-nominal ‘letters’ you could stick after your name to make it look as if you knew what you were doing. – Get Q… on the subject if you can! As a former H.E. Lecturer in TV (and the owner of a video business that has been going for 30 years now) he’ll tell you how it takes a student 2400 hours of study to get to the ’employable/trainable’ stage; an HND. Same again if they actually DO want letters after their name and acquire an Honours Degree.

      It does stick in people’s craw that in the UK, for about £150-£300 you can go through a sham assessment process and become a ‘Master’ of an ‘Institute’. – It fools some of the people for much of the time. It’s even ‘not illegal’! – But still the mark of a Charlatan/Scammer in the eyes of most credible people.

      ‘Videography’ – and particularly the wedding trade – has become/is absolutely toxic to anyone with serious intent. – The reason for that is that in the late 80s into the mid-90s a plethora of ‘prosumer’ kit emerged onto the market that was bought up by every ‘newly redundant’ donkey and his mate. This was, as your post rather suggests Sam, at a time when not-everyone had their own video cameras let alone any means of editing footage…..

      Circa 1981 you would have needed to buy (as a minimum) ‘industrial’ grade U-Matic kit and have the technical knowledge to operate it. – It wasn’t user-friendly! And cost the price of a small house IIRC! Simply getting pictures was enough to get by! BUT – By 1992 there were SVHS camcorders available for a grand and domestic VCRs with flying erase heads and built-in ECUs that could ‘edit’ after a fashion. – And of course many people were (as you say Sam) bringing their own ever-shrinking equipment to these events…..

      The ‘shanner’ – redundancy-fuelled ‘videographer’ types targeted the wedding/social trade for a couple of reasons……..

      Many of these dolts have ambitions/pretentions to work the industrial/corporate scene – but really they have no clue and are too much of a risk to have around. For a start they had no training/clue about things like the project management protocols, legal requirements or health and safety laws that impact on genuine professional productions. – It’s not the first time we’ve heard of self-commissioning clients being got into legal hot water thanks to one of the ‘videography’ brigade! Secondly, they’re typically clueless in technical terms! ‘All (or at least some of) the gear and no idea’. – More often not even that!

      The general public know no better though….

      The final nails in the coffin of the wedding trade are not so much that “‘amateurs’ in families were doing such a good job that hiring professionals was no longer necessary” – it’s that since about the early 90s there have been very few (if any) credible professionals prepared to shoot a wedding! And wedding videography is ‘cowboy country’ that no real pro wants tained by! Personally, I’ve never seen a wedding video that didn’t make me cringe – if they reach ‘camcorder club’ standard that’s a miracle! No wonder people won’t pay the money!

      And even if the public did know the difference, the cost of deploying three or four properly equipped professional cameramen for the day, editing and post… The proper insurances etc… £10K+ – That’s what we’ll budget for good coverage of an important event on a similar scale to a wedding!

      Q… Recounts the unfortunate and relatively recent story of a young colleague who lived just round the corner from him. – The chap had never approached Q… for work (a pity since he could/would have helped – as the guy DID have his degree etc.) and ‘apparently’ ran his own production company. Q… Thought it curious that this guy advertised that he would do wedding work; but you don’t question another man’s business. – But he didn’t realise just what a toxic situation the lad had created for himself ’till he saw Sheriff’s Officers repossessing the poor chap’s house! Simply ADVERTISING ‘wedding videography’ was enough to have this guy by-passed for any more serious work! – People assumed he was just another one of the ‘redundancy money’ brigade and blanked him!

      ‘Videography’ ISN’T video production! – It’s merely taking pictures with a video camera. And yes, any-old chimp (myself included) can do that these days…. It’s only when we run out of office juniors that we have any use for a paid ‘Videographer’. – But equally well there is a good reason why we’ll pay a reasonable-well equipped professional Cameraman/Producer upwards of £120/hour (+VAT!) when we have someone /something that actually matters to put on screen…

      And where is Rupert on THAT scale? – Where the non-amateurs live…

      Curiously enough £19.99 ($28) tripods, webcams, phone cameras and other bits of rubbish play no part in the armoury of credible professionals. Mrs Quaintance is clearly as deluded and ignorant as her half-witted Paedophile (he DID threaten to rape a child after all!), drug-addicted useless workshy waster of a son….

      And as for Kung Fu? – What’s that? A noodle bar he often frequents? Does this stupid, skinny, septic stick-insect actually imagine anyone is remotely impressed by either his physique or the sort of threats some little primary-school kid would make? All the Bruce Lee fantasies in the world won’t save him if he rubs one of our inner-city NEDS up the wrong way! And if he really DOES try his crap on in the sleazier parts of any of our inner cities he will most-likely be going back to the land of the bland and the home of the deranged in an air-ambulance minus his kneecaps and testicles!! – They don’t like people who threaten to rape children in these places!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Meanwhile, while Roopy’s busy self-projecting on Facebook and blowing APD’s precious “dead sister” fund in Amsterdam, Angie’s reserve toyboy Jake is unhappy, it seems:

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jake Clarke: “Here is my updated handout,I squeeze it on A5 mostly….”

      Why risk receiving a hefty fine dogging on a major public highway when you can do it outside Angies for bugger all?

      The lads a twat.

      Liked by 3 people

    • I love the way Jake speaks for the Mother/Ella and her behaviour.

      Has he even spoken to her?

      I very much doubt it and yet he is her spokesperson.

      Madness…

      Liked by 1 person

      • It really is madness. He’s going by ‘evidence’ concocted by Abe and Ella (there’s a good reason police don’t accept video ‘confessions’, but conduct ABE interviews instead), topped with a large steaming pile of Angie’s lies, and accepting these fairy stories as though they were real. And his mother, bless her, is encouraging her 37-year-old man-baby in this? Astonishing.

        Like

    • Oh dear. It’s really quite sad. He got one thing right – he has successfully been confused & deluded. I bet he was a hit at the Pink Punters.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. U-turn of the week?

    Apparently, Aangirfan told her to change her mind…so she did:

    So now the murder DID happen but it was all part of an elaborate cover-up, instigated by Gordon Brown via Oxfam – a front for MI6 – in order to stop Britain leaving the EU. All on the orders of the Israeli government. I swear I’m not making this up. Aangirfan is, though.

    Liked by 1 person

      • What a weird site that is !. Amazing how these nutters get all their initial info from tabloid newspapers or the dreaded BBC & then claim the same are all involved in a cover-up.

        Talk about drawing a long bow by comparing murders. Dando’s is an unsolved tragedy with no witnesses.Seems there are many witnesses to the Jo Cox killing with a suspect arrested and charged. One was a journalist, the other an MP.

        I still think if the right person built up a persona as Supreme Troofer & said the only way you can protect yourselves from the Illuminati Baby eating Cult is put your head in the oven and turn the gas we’d lose the lot of them. Oh that’s right, North Sea Gas doesn’t kill. Well you get my drift.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. “We’ll pay them a visit. Like I don’t already have back-up in place, lol. These people have no idea what maelstrom lurks before them.”

    Yeah? That right, is it, Roopy?

    Well, here’s a picture of us all shitting ourselves:

    Or to put it another way…

    BRING IT ON, FRUITCAKE!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Well I thought the definition of AMATEUR was UNPAID.

    The definition of PROFESSIONAL was PAID.

    Rupert’s Mum is obviously defending her son.

    Jake Clarke I find embarrassing.

    He makes me cringe.

    His Mum needs to reign him in.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. This is all so amusing….if it were not so tragic for the ones who have really suffered, the children, their father, the people whose names were dragged into this ugly child access denial attempt/punishment attempt by narcissistically injured and otherwise mad mother of said children, ie Ella Draper Gareeva…

    But seriously, apart from that, hilarious, I must admit, on many many levels and appreciate that others are following all this esp EC’s work here, and giving the idiots a good run for their money. It’s sad, but someone has to do it, and by gum, it’s fun too.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, it really is ‘send in the clowns’ time. The actual perpetrators are all off trying to keep a low profile and avoid facing up to their misdeeds.

      Like

  7. I’d seriously like to know how someone gets Sectioned?

    I’ve always thought you had to be a danger to yourself or others.

    If that is the case, surely there are quite a few players in this whole Hampstead scenario who might fit in to the category.

    Liked by 1 person

      • I Used to be involved in that field some 20+years ago

        .Essentially a referral for assessment under mental health act can be from anybody but usually comes from professionals already monitoring.an individual.

        Following interagency liaisons 2 doctors(usually inc subjects own GP and one with mental health specialism) determine if detainment needed to protect safety of individual or others..

        Where possible sectioning (section 4 of act i believe) eg against consent is avoided if subject agrees to voluntary admission and deemed appropriate.

        An (aprooved social worker) is present to ensure the rights of the individual are being adhered too and must be signatory to a sectioning..Police invariably present to ensure safety of all parties.

        Things no doubt have changed slightly but this will still be the basic proceedure.

        Christie is a very dangerous psychopath from my observation and only time before he gets banged up or given personalized straight jacket..Many of the players exhibit narcissistic personality disorders of varying degees.Others like Belnda and Angie are essentially nasty self aggrandizing ego wankers who will use the more vulnerable to further their own perceived advantage.

        I believe these like minded “outsider” individuals gravitate towards each other because of their shared inabilities to function productively within their social environments.

        Inevitably influences that have led to such dysfunctional sociopathic behaviours will be many and varied and unique to each. The consequences of behaviour are no less tolerable for unsuspecting victims however sad a back story may be.

        This whole episode is an indictment of a failed under resourced care in the community program over recent decades.Unless major reform/investment is made Hoaxtead scenarios will continue to blight many lives and deflect attention and funding from children and families who really could benefit.

        Personally I would have no qualms putting the entire hoaxtender cast on a remote island and letting them shit in each others shoes and be done with it.But hey what do I know? 😉

        Liked by 1 person

        • Thanks, Mik—your summary of the sectioning process is really useful. It’s good to know how that works, and it’s clear that it cannot just be done frivolously.

          I agree with your ‘mad versus bad’ analysis. Some of these people really are sociopathic, and they seem to take leadership roles, using others to do their bidding and take the heat when things go wrong.

          Like

  8. I’m amazed she is defending him. Why would an apparently respectable woman be so happy to see her son wasting his life hanging around with lunatics, pursuing causes that aren’t so much lost as entirely imaginary.
    Similarly I can’t decide who is dafter out of APD and Rupert; Angela for giving him her money or Rupert for believing all the rubbish she feeds him.
    What is Rupert’s plan if he makes it to London? Wander around Guidence2222 style looking for “evidence”? Sit in the pub asking if people know any Satanists?

    Liked by 1 person

    • I, quite frankly, can’t be arsed going through Fuckwitbook to see what these loons are spouting; I’ve had to do enough of that at work this past day or two…

      The question I would pose though; IS this really “an apparently respectable woman” or Rupert or some-one of his ‘little friends’ from playgroup doing the sock thing? I can’t see any sane/sensible person of even moderate intelligence attempting to argue that Rupert’s efforts are anything other than stupidly-incompetent and childishly-amateurish.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Fair question, but I actually think it’s Rupert’s mum–or at least someone with her name, profile picture, and timeline.

        I understand your antipathy towards Facebook, and share it to some degree, but I tend to think that it’s not necessarily the social media site that’s broken; it’s the nut behind the wheel. After all, a quick look around the WordPress blogging platform will reveal an inordinate number of Hoaxtead pushers, conspiranoids, and other derelicts. As in many things in life, it’s all about what you make it.

        Like

        • Up to a point I might agree…..

          But there is a good reason why I encourage my kids to stay away from the shady places where the Police never go and the local authorities don’t give a toss…. Those places where the junkies and prozzies hang out near the school gates and nobody says boo to them. And good reason why I stay away from those places myself.

          Facebook was ‘dodgy’ from day one. – Plain fact is it always was computing for the pig-shit-thick. And its business model is based on exploiting the traffic generated by the ‘infinite monkeys’ that come to graze on the local carrion. Facebook’s management is no better than Abe Christie in terms of its willingness to exploit these kids; and Hampstead is by no means an isolated case; it’s a drop in an ocean of sewage. Yes, you can say the same thing about other ‘social media’ platforms too… Particularly Google…. Even LinkedIn is a festival of complete fuckwittery….

          It’s not just a personal choice either…. Like many firms, the company I work for BANS employees from associating its name with a number of ‘social media’ sites. – That means it’s contractually gross misconduct for me to say ‘I am Joe and I work for XYZ’ on Facebook, Google and a few others… We’re only allowed to access them for research and monitoring purposes at work. – This isn’t because our Directors are worried about employees frittering away work time playing on social media – it’s because these platforms are now viewed as being so disreputable they are potentially toxic to what we do!

          Like the sink-estates that local council use as dumping grounds, and actively exploit as part of the highly-lucrative poverty industry, platforms like Facebook actively allow crime and disorder to flourish, because it feeds their coffers. – These sewers run rancid largely because there are vested interests in allowing them to fester; in NOT flushing them out. Speaking as one who grew up on one of the most deprived estates in Europe I can tell you first hand that the only solution is to ship out… There is no point in trying to make something good in a place where those that hold the power and control are making their coin by exploiting the poverty they’ve built. You wind up just pissing against the wind.

          These sites ARE broken mostly by the design consent of their owners. They are the sink estates of the virtual world. And it’s not antipathy I have for them and the people behind them. It’s a level of contempt that the English language is inadequate to express. And in which I hold the owners and controllers of those sites jointly and severally with the various criminals, child molesters and druggies at the heart of the problem.

          Like

          • Facebook and Twitter are like any other form of broadcasting. Interestingly I know some people who work in mental health who don’t touch social media for their own safety; but I also know people who work as birth doulas who are (or were a few years ago) encouraged to use social media to communicate with their clients.
            I put very anodyne stuff on various platforms for an organisation I am involved with. I try to limit how much personal information I put on social media. I avoid things that tell the world the state of my health or when I am away from home. I know one person who uses Facebook as a Russian diary; she is also mentally ill and really isn’t helping herself.

            Liked by 1 person

          • My mate Matt is not “pig-shit-thick” (in fact, he’s rather intelligent) but he has a Facebook page, as do about half the adult population of the UK, according to recent surveys. Just saying.

            (I agree that Facebook is shite but them’s the facts.)

            Liked by 1 person

          • Indeed, QTS. In fact, 1.654 billion people worldwide are regular Facebook users:

            https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics

            http://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide

            …And 32.5 million of them are in the UK (as you say, around half the population):

            http://www.statista.com/statistics/271349/facebook-users-in-the-united-kingdom-uk

            Personally, I hate Facebook, for various reasons, but I’m trying to be objective and deal in facts rather than put down every Facebook user in the World, whom I don’t believe to be “pig-shit-thick”. But that’s just my ten-penneth.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I agree–I don’t like that site any more than I like Twitter or WordPress, but I use it for various things, not least to keep an eye on those who need to be watched.

            Like

          • Agreed, Fay & QTS. I think most of the regulars on this blog have Facebook pages too and some of them are even cleverer that me 😀

            Like

          • Well said, Professor. Me and my mates are clever too. In fact, we were thinking of getting together to rewrite the complete works of Shakespeare. We just need enough typewriters.

            Like

          • ROFLMAO! …Seems my point is being proven rather well for me! For the record no, I’m NOT Matt Quinn (and neither are you!) shades of the ‘everyone is Ricky Dearman’ mentality at work there. – and the last time I looked no, he doesn’t REALLY have a Facebook page……..

            As I understand it Matt Quinn was subject to identity theft – morons setting up pages in his name – and, after involving both Lawyers and the Police Facebook suggested/insisted he ‘claim’ his own identity…… But in truth what does the page actually say? And how often has it been used????

            https://www.facebook.com/matt.quinn.39948

            Have a banana – or do strawmen eat something else?

            I never actually said “every Facebook user in the World” was pig-shit thick. I said Facebook “always was computing for the pig-shit-thick” – that’s what it was designed for, that’s the service it provides; and that’s why it attracts such a high proportion of complete and utter fuckwits!

            ‘Jusss sayinnnn’…. LOL!

            Liked by 1 person

          • I agree–looking for Matt Quinn around every corner is a bit of a waste of time. Plus, I’m not sure why one would want to. I’ve read his blog extensively, and while I disagree with his opinion of this blog, I do think he makes some important points. As well, I appreciate his perspective on the Hollie hoax.

            As for the ‘computing for the pig-shit-thick’ comment, that’s as may be. My computer programmer friends use it, my less technically literate friends use it, I use it; we all gripe about it, but we all have reasons for staying.

            My primary concern about Facebook, to be honest, is its refusal to take responsibility for some of the garbage that gets posted there. As well, I’m not overly fond of the habit of large U.S.-based tech firms, of profiting hugely from users round the world, but abnegating any responsibility for a shared taxation burden in those countries.

            Like

          • @Fairly Sane

            ….Most forms of broadcasting are highly regulated. As a commercial business you cannot place an advert in the ‘paper without it meeting certain standards and being kept within certain boundaries. Similarly you cannot broadcast a TV or radio programme outside certain boundaries – Facebook and Twitter (and Google/Youtube) operate under no such limitations. What’s more, they are not self-policing; quite the reverse – rather they feed off contention; even to the extent they’re prepared to put (for instance) the Hampstead children’s future safety, security and wellbeing at risk for the sake of their precious ‘traffic’ and tawdry profits….

            These platforms know damned-well what it is they’re hosting…. And yes indeed; whilst a few years ago many organisations and industries welcomed the rise of ‘social media’ – increasingly it’s being viewed as something dangerous and disreputable….

            Pretty ripe for what was in reality one of the very first uses found for personal computers; social media goes back to the late 70s/early 80s. – It’s only in the past 10-15 years that those infinite monkeys have been supplied with an infinite number of very sophisticated electric typewriters. – Shakespeare is in no danger from their chimping away, that’s for sure!

            Like

          • A closing point or two EC….

            Matt Quinn isn’t around many corners; much as a surprising number of people see to fear that he is for some reason….. I really do often wonder why so many people appear to be so scared of him! – the ‘Queen Gertrude’ act to borrow one of his phrases; they doth protest too much! I am not sure why, unless of course they don’t like the company he keeps; which seems to consist mainly of Police Officers (some quite senior), lawyers, mainstream journalists, advertising and media people.

            But where is the guy? Where are his 10,000+ posts on the David Icke forum? Or the hundreds of blogs he runs? – Show me his Facebook page? Twitter? ….Instagram? Pintrest? – Not much of a showman! I think the most ‘spectacular’ attention I’ve seen him get was a spread in the middle of the Sunday Times a few years back about a film he was working on; not even sure if that’s on line

            Mr Quinn – there is some way to go before I consider I can call him ‘my mate’ – is primarily a researcher. But he makes his money by other fairly prosaic means elsewhere… Not through selling stories, books, or DVDs about scandals. Nor will you particularly find him attention-seeking by other means. He keeps himself to himself only passing information on to other Journalists where he thinks some legal good can be achieved. And his most-likely call is to the private number of a senior police officer. Having actually met the man and become part of a group with which he is also involved, I can say with some certainty that he is as good as his word. – He really ISN’T to be found ‘skulking like some developmentally challenged wean’ (his phrasing) on ‘Fuckwitbook’…. A common term, incidentally as Facebook’ grip on the general population begins to ease and people become ever-more frustrated with it.

            Yes – I ‘have’ to use it as well, for monitoring and review purposes at work: I’m involved in PR. And as much as it’s a ‘channel’ that has to be utilised, increasingly the concern is (as I’ve said) these platforms are now viewed as being so disreputable they are potentially toxic to what we do! – My own personal page is about as empty as Mr Quinn’s carries a similar message (perhaps a little less blunt) and exists for much the same reason as his. And really; the clever money is – on a personal level at least – staying away in droves.

            Quinn’s opinion of this blog? Well for a start his opinions run to just nine posts, the last post specific only to Hampstead is now over a year old.

            http://hampsteadresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/8-infantile-attack-10th-june-2015.html

            I’ve seen the evidence of the threat that was made against him – it’s very real – par for the course as it is, it’s pretty disgusting and has been brought to Police attention. So it is a matter of fact, not opinion. His closing comments here are the last thing he has said publicly about this blog…

            http://hampsteadresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/10-immunity-of-idiots.html

            And I’ll repeat, having actually seen the evidence of these threats (as well as read blog entries up to that point) his contemporaneous assessment of the blog seems fair enough.

            Now? – Times have changed, and so has the tone and metre of this blog along with its management. Many of us are of the opinion that he should update his blog to acknowledge that – but nobody works that guy from behind. Mr Quinn’s (general) advice is that one should almost-always not engage with these things; but deal with matters in more appropriate and professional ways. Ian Chambers feeling the need to remove himself from comments here seems to have bolstered that advice – which is also endorsed by the Police Officers in the group.

            My presence here is of my own volition.

            And I come full circle….

            “My primary concern about Facebook, to be honest, is its refusal to take responsibility for some of the garbage that gets posted there. As well, I’m not overly fond of the habit of large U.S.-based tech firms, of profiting hugely from users round the world, but abnegating any responsibility for a shared taxation burden in those countries. ”

            And that’s a concern that’s shared. But my point is these firms are designed to be that way…

            Computing for the pig-shit-thick; like it or not, that’s what these platforms are designed to be. They are deliberately designed and geared to exploit the least-measured, least-informed, least-educated, least-intelligent excesses of human behaviour.

            That is why ‘policing’ of these platforms is, by design, a complete sham. These organisations are wilfully profiting from cases like Hampstead – probably more surely than Abe Christie, Belinda McKenzie or their kind…. They hide behind the U.S. first amendment; but in fact they are doing what they do deliberately in order to maintain profit and represent the greatest threat to free speech the modern world has seen.

            For sure, every now and again a pig pen needs hosed down and scooped out with a JCB. And sometimes you need to get your boots on and in there with a shovel to scoop out the stubborn corners. – But never forget it is a pig-pen. Or the old adage about wrestling with pigs… The pigs like it and you come out smelling like one and covered in shit! – Best to stay out of it!

            Like

    • It amazes me too. Perhaps her response says something about the sort of parent she is: willing to defend her son no matter what kind of deranged drug-addled mischief he gets up to. A lifetime of that would convince any child that they are truly superior beings, entitled to respect and adulation.

      Wait, I think I’m starting to see a pattern here….

      Like

      • It’s natural for any Mother to want to support or defend their son..but really? Does she think it’s okay he’s begging for money on the internet and then wasting it in Amsterdam?..or telling people on a YT video in a ‘joking’ fashion that he’d like to try sex with kids?

        Liked by 1 person

    • We’re big believers in family togetherness here, but you’d think that at Rupert’s age his parents might just let him fight his own battles. Especially when the battles are against imaginary foes.

      Like

Comments are closed.