Tabloid Reporters (do not read if you're sick of hearing about me and my boyf!)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I did a dumb thing. When David went to jail I emailed a couple of the papers that wrote stuff about him (anonymously, obv) and asked if they wanted my side of the story. I was upset and I wanted a chance to tell my side, y'know?
Anyway, just got this and it's freaked me slightly, either they know a lot more about me than I thought or she's bluffing. What would you do?
(Check out the writing style of this so called senior journalist too)

"Hi,

My name is Capy Bara, I am a senior reporter with the **** *****and
your email has been passed to me as I did David's original court story. I
have recenty returned from working on a story in Spain so apologies for
only contacting u now.
I dont want to say too much at the moment as I am not sure u are the
girlfriend I know of - unfortunately we do recieve some bogus mails from
time to time.
I have done alot of background research on this story and if u email me
back with the 'number' of the street u USED to live in I will know it is
you.
Of course I am very keen to talk to u to hear your side of the story. I
know u work but wondered when would be a good time to see u or chat over
the phone.
Hope to hear from you soon

Capy"

― Plinky (Plinky), Friday, 22 November 2002 01:58 (twenty-three years ago)

Don't talk to her. I can't see what good it would do you being in the paper?

― isadora (isadora), Friday, 22 November 2002 02:16 (twenty-three years ago)

I
know u work but wondered when would be a good time to see u

NEVER talk to a reporter that spells like Prince. It's just a bad sign.

― Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 22 November 2002 03:11 (twenty-three years ago)

I'd say when it's like noddy holder: it's a bad sign. when it's like prince: it's just off putting.

plink: think it was wise to have her actual name on here if it is her actual name on here?

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 22 November 2002 03:46 (twenty-three years ago)

yup, that should be starred out i reckon

― gareth (gareth), Friday, 22 November 2002 07:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Forward it to her editor, under the heading 'has your reporter been to college or not?'

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 22 November 2002 08:54 (twenty-three years ago)

DO NOT speak to her, or any of the press for that matter. You should not hope for some sort of compassion on behalf of the press. An ideal situation would be them forgetting all about your boyfriend.

― Andrew (enneff), Friday, 22 November 2002 09:49 (twenty-three years ago)

What Andrew said. Silence will better represent 'your side of the stroy' than any of their twisted versions will.

― Archel (Archel), Friday, 22 November 2002 10:21 (twenty-three years ago)

Isn't she just going to fuck off and talk to your old neighbours?

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 22 November 2002 10:24 (twenty-three years ago)

Good general ILX rule: DO NOT USE THE FULL NAME OF PEOPLE YOU WOULDN'T WANT CONTRIBUTING TO ILX

(unless they're really really famous and probably wouldnt google themselves ever)

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 22 November 2002 10:28 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh yeah don't talk to her. Andrew is completely OTM - the longer the story runs the longer people will remember yr boyfriend's name and the less quiet your life will be.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 22 November 2002 10:29 (twenty-three years ago)

Unless said reporter is the world's largest rodent, I'm guessing Plinky has changed the name to protect the bottom-feeding scum?

And yeah, ignore it.

― Mark C (Mark C), Friday, 22 November 2002 10:43 (twenty-three years ago)

Mark I changed the name - apologies to the humble and beautiful capy!

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 22 November 2002 10:50 (twenty-three years ago)

"DO NOT speak to her, or any of the press for that matter. You should not hope for some sort of compassion on behalf of the press. An ideal situation would be them forgetting all about your boyfriend"

Yes. Plinky, on another thread you said that if u talked to the press, you knew they would end up twisting your words whatever way they please. I know you must be keen to put across what your boyf is really like, but that's not what they'll put across in the paper. Don't respond to the e-mail, just let the whole thing blow over.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Friday, 22 November 2002 11:43 (twenty-three years ago)

Soz about the name thing Tom, bit dozy these days, it's the valium!

I sent an email back telling her David had asked me not to talk to reporters and I have to respect his wishes. I didn't tell her my old address, as far as I know they don't know it and I think that's just a ploy to find out more about me. The spelling was riduculous though eh?

― Plinky (Plinky), Friday, 22 November 2002 12:01 (twenty-three years ago)

Ummm, I wouldn't trust anyone who calles themselves by the name of the world's largest rodent, either.

http://www.rebsig.com/capybara

I mean, wtf?

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Friday, 22 November 2002 12:01 (twenty-three years ago)

You _really_ shouldn't have replied to the email either. I'd give that one up for lost now.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Friday, 22 November 2002 12:02 (twenty-three years ago)

That email address, that is. God I'm useless today.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Friday, 22 November 2002 12:05 (twenty-three years ago)

S'allright I used a new made up hotmail one. Sometimes I'm not completly dim, but only sometimes.....

― Plinky (Plinky), Friday, 22 November 2002 12:17 (twenty-three years ago)

sorry for the ignorance but yer threads make no sense to me. who is yer boyfriend?

― doom-e, Friday, 22 November 2002 13:09 (twenty-three years ago)

Good lord doom-e where have you been?!

My boyfs secret identity (Rule of 3)

― Plinky (Plinky), Friday, 22 November 2002 14:41 (twenty-three years ago)

how non-fabulous. i was hoping it was john leslie.

― doom-e, Friday, 22 November 2002 15:06 (twenty-three years ago)

we all were.

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 22 November 2002 15:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Now you know how we felt when we found out who you were doom-e

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 22 November 2002 15:12 (twenty-three years ago)

but i didnt care. i'm still fabulous.

― doom-e, Friday, 22 November 2002 15:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Ludacris.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 22 November 2002 15:18 (twenty-three years ago)

yawn. next.

― doom-e, Friday, 22 November 2002 15:21 (twenty-three years ago)

Note for later:make insults more entertaining for recipients.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 22 November 2002 15:32 (twenty-three years ago)

i was thinking more on the lines of

please make yerself more entertaining for recipents.

yawn.

― doom-e, Friday, 22 November 2002 15:43 (twenty-three years ago)

Ooh! I'm only teasing by the way.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 22 November 2002 15:59 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh dear lord I'm so freaked out, that Capy Bara burd just phoned me, at work! She knows everything about me and I'm such an arse for even thinking they wouldn't hunt me down eventually. I was pleasant to her (coz I can't afford to antagonise these people) but I really just wanted to tell her to f*ck off. Shit shit shit...

― Plinky (Plinky), Monday, 25 November 2002 14:59 (twenty-three years ago)

What did you say to her, Plinky? I really hope it was closely related to 'no comment whatsoever, goodbye'.

― Archel (Archel), Monday, 25 November 2002 15:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Words to that effect, basically said I'd said everything I wanted to say in my email, that David has asked me not to speak to reporters. She wanted to prove she knew who I was though, she could tell me my old address and stuff - I have a pretty unusual surname and my parents are gonna be so upset that she knows exactly who I am. She caught me off guard, I was like how did you get this number? And she was dead smug, you know, like "we know all about you Plinky" spooky as f*ck.

― Plinky (Plinky), Monday, 25 November 2002 15:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Say as little as possible, preferably a polite no comment. They'll be able to spin out a story with only a few sentences from you, rspecially if they've been checking your background, family etc

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Monday, 25 November 2002 15:10 (twenty-three years ago)

I know, this is so shit, I'm such an arse, why did I ever even send that email? She can use what I said in that now can't she? I'm f*cked. Davd and I just wanna get his jail time over with and get on with our lives, this is hard enough. To top it all the f*cking B*P have a D*** W**** appeal fund on their website - they are holding him up as some sort of hero for going to jail! Why can't they all just leave us alone.

― Plinky (Plinky), Monday, 25 November 2002 15:14 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh f*ck, I can't take anymore of this. The D**** R***** have been at my neighbours, and David's ex wife has been on the phone, apparently they are running a story tomorrow about me - oh joy, like I don't have enough to deal with. Where did I put that valium......

― Plinky (Plinky), Monday, 25 November 2002 15:57 (twenty-three years ago)

o dear, nothing like a story run by people who will probably make up the main guts of it just to fill it out.
i wish i had some fabulous advice to offer you plinky, but all i can say is keep your mouth shut, hold your head up and try to focus on the fact that soon enough someone else will do something worse, and the fascination of the press will be drawn elsewhere.
everything passes eventually, in a years time you may not be 'over it' but you will have lived through it, so try to ensure you can look back on it knowing you made it through with honour.
good luck :-)

― donna (donna), Monday, 25 November 2002 19:22 (twenty-three years ago)

This all sounds really shitty. All the best for tomorrow, Plinky.

― Jeff W, Monday, 25 November 2002 19:47 (twenty-three years ago)

Thanks. I dont feel like being dignified and honourable right now, right now I wanna kill someone, haven't I been through enough? I mean, David made his bed and he's pepared to lie in it but I've done nothing but fall in love with a man with a bad past,and now they are gonna drag me and my family through the mud. Scum buckets. F*ck knows what they are gonna say but you can bet it aint gona be nice. Think they might paint me as a scarlet woman/home wrecker/jesebel type, it's the only angle I can think of, even though it's not true - but hey, since when have tabloids cared about the truth?

― Plinky (Plinky), Monday, 25 November 2002 20:34 (twenty-three years ago)

I'll leave it to Plinky to post the link if she wants. They didn't have to speak to her as they've quoted her verbatim from the boards. Something to remember in between the in jokes and the banter is that these are public boards and a bit of caution's necessary when discussing personal stuff.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 00:18 (twenty-three years ago)

And also the fact that all the copywright in the material each poster writes remains with that poster and cannot be reproduced without permission. Isn't that in the FAQs or something?

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 00:22 (twenty-three years ago)

"Do I have copyright over things I post on ILx?

Yes."

It's in the FAQ alright...

― DG (D_To_The_G), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 00:24 (twenty-three years ago)

Owning copyright doesn't mean others can't quote short passages. See reviews of books etc.

Also the information in the FAQ is presumably only meant to make it clear that posts belong to the writer rather than to the administrator of ILX. I don't think they represent a summary of the copyright laws.

The whole thing is not cool, though.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 00:35 (twenty-three years ago)

There doesn't have to be a summary of the copywright laws on a site to protect its posters from infringers, but information that a group of people agree about ownership of posts should count for something. Here's where being a book reviewer may just come in handy. All proofs come granting permission to quote passages for review purposes. I'm assuming this is a privilege which has to be granted before it can proceed. See also past practice - every single other journalist/editor/author/whatever wishing to quote from ilx has made an effort to contact the poster in question, either through e-mail or through posting here. The DR reporter did not.

Privacy issues raised might be worth consulting legal help over.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 00:47 (twenty-three years ago)

That should read, 'contact the poster in question to ask permission to use an excerpt', duh. The reporter made contact, but didn't mention anything about posts, did she?

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 00:52 (twenty-three years ago)

What a colossal fuck-up. My commiserations to Plinky.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 00:56 (twenty-three years ago)

yes. mine too. this is awful.

― donna (donna), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 01:04 (twenty-three years ago)

Suzy, the main thing is, I doubt Plinky's best course would be to sue for plagiarism (if that's what you're suggesting), or anything else. A lot of the journalism of scandal involves quoting from stuff (letters, e-mails, phone calls, etc) whose creators/participants have given no permission for such use. I'm assuming that Plinky will not be keen to do anything other than keep hidden for a while now. The fuss will disappear, eventually, in the papers at least. I hope she is okay.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 02:33 (twenty-three years ago)

Yikes, I just read the article. Smug bitch, isn't she?

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 02:53 (twenty-three years ago)

The newspaper would cite that the breach of copyright is in the public interest. From the liberty website, they would not prohibit the infringement of another's copyright where the public interest in publication outweighed the private right of property. The defence is based on the idea that the public's need to know should sometimes override the copyright owner's right to restrict or prevent publication.

Whatever, it sucks.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 03:01 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeesh, that conclusion of the article. :-( The whole thing, really, but especially that. :-(

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 03:18 (twenty-three years ago)

far out,i just read it. how intrusive to go quoting things that have been said on here, all found by lurking and sneaking about.

― donna (donna), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 05:28 (twenty-three years ago)

Ahem....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=12403336&method=full&siteid=89488

I'm probably gonna loose my job now.

― Plinky (Plinky), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 06:26 (twenty-three years ago)

I am so so sorry to hear this, Plinky. If it's any consolation I've just sent the article to a friend to read, with no explanation, and her response was basically that (a) I am a lunatic and why did I send that, but also (b) it makes the writer look a lot worse than the subject.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 06:49 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with Mr nabisco's friend.........the writer comes across as a total bitch. Suprise Suprise. Sorry about all this Plinky.

― gazza, Tuesday, 26 November 2002 06:55 (twenty-three years ago)

The writer sounds piqued by yesterday's comments. Mocking her name and use of English and assuming she'd be too dumb to locate the comments was a big mistake, unfortunately.

― David (David), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 07:01 (twenty-three years ago)

Billy, the 'public interest' thing would have to be proved by the paper. You'd be surprised what kind of stuff gets kept out of papers by people with loads of money and legal help. Just because the boyfriend is public property, it doesn't follow that P should also be.

Nabisco, that 'umbrage on behalf of the reader' schtick employed by tabloid journalists is all too common in Britain.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 07:59 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh blimey, what a mess.

― RickyT (RickyT), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 09:30 (twenty-three years ago)

Suzy, I accept what you're saying. You know the media and it's workings a lot better than I do.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 09:33 (twenty-three years ago)

it's creepy, but it could be a lot, lot worse. At least some of Plinky's explanations and defences get quoted verbatim. As for all the "we were reading every word" who exactly is going to be impressed by this? Surely most readers will just think "ewwww".

but blimey, a reminder that tabloid scum are pretty much as low as BNP scum on the food chain.

― pulpo, Tuesday, 26 November 2002 09:47 (twenty-three years ago)

So sorry Plinky. But it's not too much to hope that other readers than us will recognise that this article (especially the last bit which is just cretinous crowing) is a very long way from news journalism. Be strong.

― Archel (Archel), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 09:58 (twenty-three years ago)

The "world's largest rodent" joke may have antagonised the reporter (though as pulpo says the content if not the method was a lot better than it could have been) but it also made a link to us in a tabloid newspaper a bit more unlikely.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 10:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Plinky, can I ask why (according to that news story) your bf is still receiving expressions of support from the BNP? Has he publicly repudiated their interest and 'concern'? And if he hasn't, why not?

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 10:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, so sorry about this, Plinky. The gloating at the end of the article is particularly sickening.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 10:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Sorry to hear this Plinky, it's a nightmare for you but I hope there is some kind of upside.

(does this have any kind of implications for ILX in general, if that's not an insensitive question at the moment)

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 10:37 (twenty-three years ago)

The implications it has for ILX are that a tabloid reporter knows about it and will no doubt be looking at certain threads for a while in the hope that Plinky will say something juicy. Other posters should be aware of this and I'll be cracking down harder than usual on libellous remarks. On the other hand it seems to me that there's very little on ILX that's newsworthy apart from Plinky - "INTERNET WASTERS TALK SHIT ON MESSAGE BOARDS" is no big shocker.

The key things with ILX are to keep the address out of big publications so we don't get sudden user surges, and to keep googleable things out of ILX which might lead to eg B*P members getting here. Luckily P's boyfriend's name is not google-able in ways which lead to ILX. My main worry over this is that a B*P thug will read the Herald story and decide to find this message board to exercise 'right of reply' - though I think this is pretty unlikely.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 10:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Also I think Andrew's qn is U&K.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 10:56 (twenty-three years ago)

With regards to copyright:

Acts that do not infringe copyright
'Fair dealing’ is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree (normally copies of parts of a work) without infringing copyright, these acts are; Private and research study purposes. Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes. Criticism and news reporting. Incidental inclusion.

So no breach. As for Andrew's question, it is surely in the interests of a group to continue supporting someone who is in the newspaper, even if he no longer supports them back. (It is also clearly more publicicty for them...ho hum).

For what its worth I think you come out of it pretty well from an objective point of view Plinky. Not that you would like to be in that position.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 11:06 (twenty-three years ago)

i hope all goes well for plinky, if that helps at all.
that so-called journalist might be reading this now: you and your job are so SAD.

― joan vich (joan vich), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 11:06 (twenty-three years ago)

to be honest, i dont think you came out of this report that badly, they quoted you directly, i dont think you have that much to complain about (it could have been far worse than this)

― gareth (gareth), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 11:14 (twenty-three years ago)

I can't see that the reporter is going to be too keen to draw her reader's attention to this site. No-one who read this thread would end up with an enhanced view of her or her newspaper. Despite her attempt at triumphalism at the end of the article (so much more revealing of personality than intended), I'm sure coming here doesn't give her a warm feeling about who she is or what she does for a living.

― ArfArf, Tuesday, 26 November 2002 11:18 (twenty-three years ago)

"INTERNET WASTERS TALK SHIT ON MESSAGE BOARDS" is no big shocker

this is news to me !!

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 11:20 (twenty-three years ago)

plink said before that she was angry to see that they had set up a fund thing. but, yo, her boyf should definitely make an statement distancing himself [these days] and saying "I don't want it/won't take it/hate those people." if that's how it is.

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 11:28 (twenty-three years ago)

message from plinky:
"I wont be posting for a while, obv.
Please tell everyone thanks for the support."

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 11:34 (twenty-three years ago)

what i'm worried about is all the personal information about plinky that she's just put into the public domain - your name, address, where you work etc. can they do that?

at the very least i'd change my login name.

― koogs, Tuesday, 26 November 2002 11:36 (twenty-three years ago)

someone just suggested there was a case for the deletion of all plinky's boyf-related threads.

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 11:39 (twenty-three years ago)

let's hope she lurks/reads for a while. that record article works really well for her/them until the last gloating bit -- it looks like the reporter was short of 50 words and decided to fill it with something unpleasant. who'd have thought.

― Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 11:40 (twenty-three years ago)

M-m-maybe Capy Bara was a regular BEFORE!!!

Deletion of all PB threads is the 'safest' option but something about it doesnt sit right with me. I'll have a think over a packet of crisps.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 11:45 (twenty-three years ago)

well it's plinky's call and it IS creepy to have "correspondence" suddenly published without yr approval, but I really think that all she has said here works FOR her, and so far (including that report) it has come out reasonably positively (as far as is possible with such a story). the personal details stuff is alarming tho...

― Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 11:52 (twenty-three years ago)

Ah well, Pauline. I guess what really got her was the fact that you seemed to imagine that the racist scum's colleagues might "want to send him a wee card." Before that, we just thought you were some poor lassie who'd got stuck with the nasty wee nyaff.

I might as well tell you that we were all shocked to hear about Davy's disgusting wee hobby. We're glad he's been made an example of and relieved that we won't be seeing him around here again. His B*P pals try to make out that they're a respectable party - the voice of ordinary people. No. We're ordinary people and we won't tolerate racism. Let this be a message, dear readers: Play with the Nazis and this is what happens.

I do sympathise a wee bit though. His B*P mates have left him high and dry, haven't they? Pity the polis didn't nick their leader Griffiths, because he was the one that organised it all and used eejits like Davy to do his leg work. Still....If we all knew what scum the B*P are, how come he didn't? Mind you, he's well sleazy. We all know about him shagging prossies every time he's away in Bristol.

Is that grammatical enough for you?

― Plinky Plunk (No Nazis), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 12:27 (twenty-three years ago)

"yo, her boyf should definitely make an statement distancing himself [these days] and saying "I don't want it/won't take it/hate those people." if that's how it is."

Yep. There's some seriously slimey people putting stuff on the internet that's treating P's boyf like a martyr to their sick cause. If he's a changed man, he'd be as sickened by this shit it as I am.

"to be honest, i dont think you came out of this report that badly, they quoted you directly, i dont think you have that much to complain about (it could have been far worse than this)"

Yup. They put in the parts where you say he's a changed man, and where you say that you totally disapprove of his actions, so it wasn't 100% bad. It's the headline, and the gloating at the end, that are bad.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 12:33 (twenty-three years ago)

(note to plinky plunk: the party name has been rendered non-googleable not to censor yr post but just to try and make it a little less likely that its supporters get a foothold in here)

― board moderator (mark s), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 12:36 (twenty-three years ago)

Good one, Mr. Moderator. I wholly approve. I guess poor Plinky may be collateral damage in the fight against the nazis. How's she and Davy going to help? Go public and repent? Do community volunteer work in Pollokshields? Send some money to the ANL? Over to you.....

― Plinky Plunk (No Nazis), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 12:52 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom, is it possible for you to pull these threads for the time being, and bring them back in some months when things have settled down? There are traps being set here.

Also I'm a bit disturbed that someone seems to have pointed the tabloid scum this way. Whoever you are, you have compounded a sad situation horribly, and the idea that humiliating people on the margins is justifiable by the greater politix of the affair probably leaves you with much less dignity than you were born with.

― Benjamin, Tuesday, 26 November 2002 16:51 (twenty-three years ago)

I mean Mark. Not Tom.

― Benjamin, Tuesday, 26 November 2002 16:52 (twenty-three years ago)

I can do it too Ben!

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 16:54 (twenty-three years ago)

tom and i were just discussing this on the shout-for-the-moderator thread benjamin

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 16:55 (twenty-three years ago)

In fact it's being discussed on the shout for the moderator thread. The consensus so far is wait-and-see.

My impression is that the tabloids got hold of Plinky's plinky email, not that there was a tip-off.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 16:55 (twenty-three years ago)

but the question is: should we do it?
i guess this is being argued in another thread...

er, too late, i see the moderators are already working on it...

― joan vich (joan vich), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 16:57 (twenty-three years ago)

that article's the most horrible thing I've ever seen. I'd heard British tabloids were bad, but this makes the U.S. equivalent look downright decent.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 26 November 2002 19:41 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.