Essendope

This unofficial St Kilda Saints fan forum is for people of all ages and all posts must be respectful.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

Re: Essendope

Postby oh when the » Fri 10 Mar 2017 1:31pm

Is it legal to tape a conversation without consent
oh when the
Club Player
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue 07 Feb 2012 1:03pm

Re: Essendope

Postby The OtherThommo » Fri 10 Mar 2017 1:44pm

Linton Lodger wrote:
IanRush wrote:EFC Damage Control V2.000


Bombers boss secretly taped meeting in bid to prove blackmail

Michael Warner, Herald Sun
18 minutes ago

BOMBERS boss Xavier Campbell secretly taped a cafe meeting with the father of former team manager John Elliott in a bid to prove the club was being blackmailed.

The Herald Sun can reveal Mr Campbell met John Elliott Sr at the Edward Abbott cafe in Napier St, Strathmore, last December to discuss John Elliott Jr’s redundancy after seven years as a club employee.

Mr Elliott Sr allegedly told Mr Campbell he did not believe his son had been offered enough money in his exit package and threatened to “sling a bit of mud, which will stick” unless it were increased.

In a legal letter sent two days later to Mr Elliott Sr, Bombers lawyer Tony Hargreaves declared: “Having listened to the recording, it is my opinion that you have committed the offence of blackmail … You have, among other things, threatened Mr Campbell that unless the club increases the offer to your son, you will speak to journalists with a view to discrediting Mr Campbell and or the club.


That is NOT blackmail.

If Vic Pol have commenced an investigation based on the above, then they're part of the problem.

If that is deemed as blackmail, then just about every person who has negotiated the settlement of a dispute, is guilty of blackmail.


There does seem to be a lot of superficial definitions of "blackmail" around, LL.

I found this one to be a little more thorough, nuanced, even.

"blackmail in English law, a person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces and for this purpose menaces are unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief that he had reasonable grounds for making the demand and that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand."

Many definitions don't bother with words like "unwarranted", "does so in the belief....reasonable grounds......proper means".

I would also think ol' man Elliott's threat to 'sling mud' could be rather easily wiped away as "I misspoke, I meant to say failure to settle this dispute would leave us free to speak, given no confidentiality agreement would be in place".

Or, sumting like that.

Edited for a P.S. Where Hargreaves writes of 'speaking to journalists with a view to discrediting Campbell and or club', since when did 'discrediting', if based on fact or reasonable belief, become the basis for criminal offence, particularly if there is no agreement in place to NOT speak?
Last edited by The OtherThommo on Fri 10 Mar 2017 1:52pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Gad! This comic's a real page turner. It's thlopping over with gripping suspense." - Daffy Duck (just 'cos he's a duck).
The OtherThommo
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sun 27 Feb 2005 2:30am

Re: Essendope

Postby White Winmar » Fri 10 Mar 2017 1:44pm

Indeed. As long as you are part of the conversation. If you're not reasonably able to be considered part of it, you are technically considered to be "eavesdropping".
I started with nothing and I've got most of it left!
User avatar
White Winmar
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 10:02pm

Re: Essendope

Postby White Winmar » Fri 10 Mar 2017 2:07pm

The OtherThommo wrote:
Linton Lodger wrote:
IanRush wrote:EFC Damage Control V2.000


Bombers boss secretly taped meeting in bid to prove blackmail

Michael Warner, Herald Sun
18 minutes ago

BOMBERS boss Xavier Campbell secretly taped a cafe meeting with the father of former team manager John Elliott in a bid to prove the club was being blackmailed.

The Herald Sun can reveal Mr Campbell met John Elliott Sr at the Edward Abbott cafe in Napier St, Strathmore, last December to discuss John Elliott Jr’s redundancy after seven years as a club employee.

Mr Elliott Sr allegedly told Mr Campbell he did not believe his son had been offered enough money in his exit package and threatened to “sling a bit of mud, which will stick” unless it were increased.

In a legal letter sent two days later to Mr Elliott Sr, Bombers lawyer Tony Hargreaves declared: “Having listened to the recording, it is my opinion that you have committed the offence of blackmail … You have, among other things, threatened Mr Campbell that unless the club increases the offer to your son, you will speak to journalists with a view to discrediting Mr Campbell and or the club.


That is NOT blackmail.

If Vic Pol have commenced an investigation based on the above, then they're part of the problem.

If that is deemed as blackmail, then just about every person who has negotiated the settlement of a dispute, is guilty of blackmail.


There does seem to be a lot of superficial definitions of "blackmail" around, LL.

I found this one to be a little more thorough, nuanced, even.

"blackmail in English law, a person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces and for this purpose menaces are unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief that he had reasonable grounds for making the demand and that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand."

Many definitions don't bother with words like "unwarranted", "does so in the belief....reasonable grounds......proper means".

I would also think ol' man Elliott's threat to 'sling mud' could be rather easily wiped away as "I misspoke, I meant to say failure to settle this dispute would leave us free to speak, given no confidentiality agreement would be in place".

Or, sumting like that.

Edited for a P.S. Where Hargreaves writes of 'speaking to journalists with a view to discrediting Campbell and or club', since when did 'discrediting', if based on fact or reasonable belief, become the basis for criminal offence, particularly if there is no agreement in place to NOT speak?


Indeed, ToT. Unwarranted demands, accompanied by menaces? In these circumstances, a half decent third year law student would get you off. I think the actions alleged would not amount to meeting the required standard of proof for such a serious offence. Perhaps they should've threatened to duke it out via the civil courts. Even then, they would've copped short shrift.
I started with nothing and I've got most of it left!
User avatar
White Winmar
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 10:02pm

Re: Essendope

Postby Linton Lodger » Fri 10 Mar 2017 2:09pm

oh when the wrote:Is it legal to tape a conversation without consent


Yes, to protect your own interest, but you are not allowed to publish it (that includes playing it to journos).
Linton Lodger
Club Player
 
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon 18 Aug 2014 2:07pm

Re: Essendope

Postby Con Gorozidis » Fri 10 Mar 2017 2:12pm

Essendon are incredibly unethical.
Why is Campbell meeting this guy for coffee in Strathmore ?
Last edited by Con Gorozidis on Fri 10 Mar 2017 2:18pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Con Gorozidis
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 21547
Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm

Re: Essendope

Postby Con Gorozidis » Fri 10 Mar 2017 2:14pm

Linton Lodger wrote:
oh when the wrote:Is it legal to tape a conversation without consent


Yes, to protect your own interest, but you are not allowed to publish it (that includes playing it to journos).

Correct. And it needs to be a legitimate lawful interest.
User avatar
Con Gorozidis
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 21547
Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm

Re: Essendope

Postby The OtherThommo » Fri 10 Mar 2017 2:18pm

Just to follow on from the last contribution, I wonder if Hargreaves would consider Ol' Man Elliott mentioning this to a journalist to constitute 'discredit'?

"ESSENDON chief executive Xavier Campbell self-injected the artificial tanning drug Melanotan II during the 2012 season, according to ASADA’s interim report.

The confidential document states that an Essendon assistant coach gave the peptide to Campbell, who self-administered it.

The extract, seen by the Herald Sun, states: “Xavier Campbell injected himself with Melanotan II that was supplied by (an assistant coach).

“The use was based on a recommendation from (a club official). It is highly unlikely that the Melanotan II was medically prescribed for use by Mr Campbell”.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/e ... 87e1c317f2

Perhaps Ol' Man Elliott thought Campbell was part of the problem, not part of the 'solution'.

Stick me in a room to negotiate with a CEO who has just jabbed himself with a drug that is not approved for human therapeutic use, anywhere in the world, just 'cos he fancies a better tan, and/or a trouser jolly up, off a recommendation from an Asst Coach, and I am most definitely going to work the levers of righteousness in the name of personal interest.

'Once again, they have sent me a fool'.

I'd even make sure the tape was running.
"Gad! This comic's a real page turner. It's thlopping over with gripping suspense." - Daffy Duck (just 'cos he's a duck).
The OtherThommo
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sun 27 Feb 2005 2:30am

Re: Essendope

Postby Linton Lodger » Fri 10 Mar 2017 2:20pm

The OtherThommo wrote:
Linton Lodger wrote:
IanRush wrote:EFC Damage Control V2.000


Bombers boss secretly taped meeting in bid to prove blackmail

Michael Warner, Herald Sun
18 minutes ago

BOMBERS boss Xavier Campbell secretly taped a cafe meeting with the father of former team manager John Elliott in a bid to prove the club was being blackmailed.

The Herald Sun can reveal Mr Campbell met John Elliott Sr at the Edward Abbott cafe in Napier St, Strathmore, last December to discuss John Elliott Jr’s redundancy after seven years as a club employee.

Mr Elliott Sr allegedly told Mr Campbell he did not believe his son had been offered enough money in his exit package and threatened to “sling a bit of mud, which will stick” unless it were increased.

In a legal letter sent two days later to Mr Elliott Sr, Bombers lawyer Tony Hargreaves declared: “Having listened to the recording, it is my opinion that you have committed the offence of blackmail … You have, among other things, threatened Mr Campbell that unless the club increases the offer to your son, you will speak to journalists with a view to discrediting Mr Campbell and or the club.


That is NOT blackmail.

If Vic Pol have commenced an investigation based on the above, then they're part of the problem.

If that is deemed as blackmail, then just about every person who has negotiated the settlement of a dispute, is guilty of blackmail.


There does seem to be a lot of superficial definitions of "blackmail" around, LL.

I found this one to be a little more thorough, nuanced, even.

"blackmail in English law, a person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces and for this purpose menaces are unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief that he had reasonable grounds for making the demand and that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand."

Many definitions don't bother with words like "unwarranted", "does so in the belief....reasonable grounds......proper means".

I would also think ol' man Elliott's threat to 'sling mud' could be rather easily wiped away as "I misspoke, I meant to say failure to settle this dispute would leave us free to speak, given no confidentiality agreement would be in place".

Or, sumting like that.

Edited for a P.S. Where Hargreaves writes of 'speaking to journalists with a view to discrediting Campbell and or club', since when did 'discrediting', if based on fact or reasonable belief, become the basis for criminal offence, particularly if there is no agreement in place to NOT speak?


In this context (Elliott and Campbell's meeting), this is what effectively occured:

Elliott's position is that EFC are not offering sufficient compensation to his son. There is an inference (I don't know if that is due incorrect reporting) that the EFC had made an offer, which Elliott was knocking back. Either way Elliott is claiming that his son was injured by the EFC's (wilful) negligence and wants his son compensated.

Elliott no doubt has put a figure on that compensation. Elliott is saying they will settle their grievances with EFC and then we'll sign a Deed including strict non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses. In the absence of a settlement, then Elliott made it clear that they'd no longer keep their mouths shut for the good of the EFC.

At the very worse, both parties have breached the Accident Compensation Act (not a Police matter). It ain't blackmail. What it is, is a big fat red herring.
Linton Lodger
Club Player
 
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon 18 Aug 2014 2:07pm

Re: Essendope

Postby Linton Lodger » Fri 10 Mar 2017 2:27pm

The OtherThommo wrote:Just to follow on from the last contribution, I wonder if Hargreaves would consider Ol' Man Elliott mentioning this to a journalist to constitute 'discredit'?

"ESSENDON chief executive Xavier Campbell self-injected the artificial tanning drug Melanotan II during the 2012 season, according to ASADA’s interim report.

The confidential document states that an Essendon assistant coach gave the peptide to Campbell, who self-administered it.

The extract, seen by the Herald Sun, states: “Xavier Campbell injected himself with Melanotan II that was supplied by (an assistant coach).

“The use was based on a recommendation from (a club official). It is highly unlikely that the Melanotan II was medically prescribed for use by Mr Campbell”.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/e ... 87e1c317f2

Perhaps Ol' Man Elliott thought Campbell was part of the problem, not part of the 'solution'.

Stick me in a room to negotiate with a CEO who has just jabbed himself with a drug that is not approved for human therapeutic use, anywhere in the world, just 'cos he fancies a better tan, and/or a trouser jolly up, off a recommendation from an Asst Coach, and I am most definitely going to work the levers of righteousness in the name of personal interest.

'Once again, they have sent me a fool'.

I'd even make sure the tape was running.


From an evidentiary point of view, Xavier Campbell has no credibility whatsoever.
Linton Lodger
Club Player
 
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon 18 Aug 2014 2:07pm

Re: Essendope

Postby The OtherThommo » Fri 10 Mar 2017 2:46pm

Linton Lodger wrote:
oh when the wrote:Is it legal to tape a conversation without consent


Yes, to protect your own interest, but you are not allowed to publish it (that includes playing it to journos).


Did they 'play' it to journos?
"Gad! This comic's a real page turner. It's thlopping over with gripping suspense." - Daffy Duck (just 'cos he's a duck).
The OtherThommo
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sun 27 Feb 2005 2:30am

Re: Essendope

Postby saynta » Fri 10 Mar 2017 3:32pm

oh when the wrote:Is it legal to tape a conversation without consent


Not in some states.

ie ACT legislation.

art 2
Offences
4
Use of listening devices
(1) A person must not use a liste
ning device with th
e intention of—
(a) listening to or recording a
private conversation to which the
person is not a party; or
(b) recording a private conversati
on to which the person is a party.
Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—
(a) the use of a listening device
under an authority granted by or
under a law of the Commonwealth; or
(b) the unintentional hearing of
a private conversation by means of
a listening device.
(3) Subsection (1) (b) does not apply
to the use of a listening device by,
or on behalf of, a party to
a private conversation if—
(a) each principal party to the conversation consents to that use of
the listening device; or
(b) a principal party to the conversation consents to the listening
device being so used, and—
(i) the recording of the conve
rsation is considered by that
principal party, on reasonable
grounds, to be necessary
for the protection of that princi
pal party’s lawful interests;
or
(ii) the recording is not made for the purpose of
communicating or publishing th
e conversation, or a report
of the conversation, to any pe
rson who is not a party to
the conversation.
saynta
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 4392
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm

Re: Essendope

Postby bigcarlosis » Fri 10 Mar 2017 4:39pm

Some wise bloke said on here waaay back that with time come the cracks.
Be good if Hirdy fell through one and busted his ass!
I know he's suffered, just not enough...yet!
User avatar
bigcarlosis
Club Player
 
Posts: 712
Joined: Sat 14 Jun 2014 8:03pm

Re: Essendope

Postby Con Gorozidis » Fri 10 Mar 2017 5:44pm

What is amazing is that the Bombers position seems to be:
'sure we cheated but we are so angry because the AFL implied they would cover it up and then went back on their word! How dare they. It's so unfair. Bad AFL!'
User avatar
Con Gorozidis
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 21547
Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm

Re: Essendope

Postby White Winmar » Fri 10 Mar 2017 6:31pm

saynta wrote:
oh when the wrote:Is it legal to tape a conversation without consent


Not in some states.

ie ACT legislation.

art 2
Offences
4
Use of listening devices
(1) A person must not use a liste
ning device with th
e intention of—
(a) listening to or recording a
private conversation to which the
person is not a party; or
(b) recording a private conversati
on to which the person is a party.
Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—
(a) the use of a listening device
under an authority granted by or
under a law of the Commonwealth; or
(b) the unintentional hearing of
a private conversation by means of
a listening device.
(3) Subsection (1) (b) does not apply
to the use of a listening device by,
or on behalf of, a party to
a private conversation if—
(a) each principal party to the conversation consents to that use of
the listening device; or
(b) a principal party to the conversation consents to the listening
device being so used, and—
(i) the recording of the conve
rsation is considered by that
principal party, on reasonable
grounds, to be necessary
for the protection of that princi
pal party’s lawful interests;
or
(ii) the recording is not made for the purpose of
communicating or publishing th
e conversation, or a report
of the conversation, to any pe
rson who is not a party to
the conversation.

Wasn't the difference in ACT law designed to protect Lionel "my little mate" Murphy? Judge, government minister etc. His skullduggery threatened to destroy the government. Hence the change to protect him and scuttle the chances of prosecution based on some damning recordings.
I started with nothing and I've got most of it left!
User avatar
White Winmar
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 10:02pm

Re: Essendope

Postby Toy Saint » Fri 10 Mar 2017 9:05pm

....blackmail or cash to keep quiet?...

...I kinda assume that somebody paid Dank and Robinson to keep silent...

..and if I were Elliott and I knew a lot of stuff that happened I'd be kinda assuming that somebody might pay me a few bucks to keep my gob shut..
Toy Saint
Club Player
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Wed 19 Aug 2009 10:32pm
Location: Del Mar, California

Re: Essendope

Postby Numpty » Sat 11 Mar 2017 11:24pm

Waltzing St Kilda wrote:Someone willingly had an affair with Andrew Bolt???!!!


Well folks, what with my good friends at the CIA leaking, I mean, look at Hillary Clinton, she's the most crooked public servant ever. Believe me.

What was I saying??? Oh yes. Folks, with the revelations about Andrew Bolt and Kooky Kimberly Kitching (and to think I get into trouble merely for showering! :roll: ), well, it looks like one prominent Saintsational legal mind, and a well known shunner of fake news, will now have a bit of extra free time. :mrgreen:

Now folks, this person is one of the great legal minds. I know. Because some guy I was chatting with in the line at Kentucky Fried Chicken, well folks, he recommended this person highly. Now sure, that guy I was chatting with was a bit funny, but he's white, like me. He's a feline lover, like me. All confirmed by my good friends at the CIA too. Believe me. And as Steve Bannon always says, a white feline loving guy is purrfect. :lol:

So, the Bolt and the Ms KKK. Well folks, this is the greatest news ever! The greatest news ever. :D I need someone to re-draft my new Numptycare Policy. It'll be the best health plan ever. Not sure for whom yet, but it'll be the best. Because it's not socialism. Not socialism. Believe me.

So Saynta, you come highly recommended by 1000% of all the white Kenfucky Fried Chicken chomping and feline loving people I know. Highly recommended. And serendipitously, you now need a new pass time, now that cutting and pasting Andrew Bolt's fake news is no longer your passion. So, expect a call. Saynta. Believe me. #makingwhiteKKKBoltersfelineloversgrateagain


(And folks, I back my friends at the CIA 1000%. This week.

Anything you hear different is fake news. This week. Because nobody backs the CIA 10,000% like I do. Nobody. Believe me.)
User avatar
Numpty
Club Player
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat 18 Jul 2015 12:54pm
Location: Mexico

Re: Essendope

Postby IanRush » Sun 12 Mar 2017 12:47am

FYI RE Andrew Bolt Kimberly Kitching Affair

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/kangaro ... w-low/amp/
Kitching’s affair with Andrew Bolt

In 2013/2014 News Corp journalist Andrew Bolt was using his TV show pushing for Kimberley Kitching to be preselected for another Senate spot. It was widely rumoured that Kitching and Bolt had an affair when Landeryou fled overseas from Australian authorities in 2004/05. Bolt has never denied the affair and I wrote to him asking questions in 2014 but he never responded.

The affair is about the only thing that would explain why Bolt promotes a fraudster and thief like Kitching. Below is a video where Bolt admitted supporting Kitchings Senate bid in 2013.

Kimberley Kitching and Andrew Landeryou get a lot of support from Andrew Bolt and other News Corp journalists like Political Editor for the Herald Sun James Campbell who in effect aid and abet Kitching and Landeryou in their fraud and theft.
USELESS FACT: The WADA case against Essendon (in Sydney as well) is exactly 10 years to the day that Australia qualified for the 2006 FIFA World Cup.
IanRush
Club Player
 
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon 12 Jan 2015 10:57am

Re: Essendope

Postby IanRush » Sun 12 Mar 2017 1:06am

Saints link too RE Kitching/Bolt

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... e143f8e74e
Party.

Labor’s newest senator, Kimberley Kitching, says she remembers “being very surprised” when Federal Court judge Mordecai Bromberg decided to hear Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt’s racial discrimination case, given his close relationship with the Labor Party.

Speaking with Bolt on his Sky News program The Bolt Report on Monday night, Senator Kitching said she had known Justice Bromberg through the Labor Party.

A Federal Court judge since 2009 and former VFL footballer for St Kilda, Justice Bromberg ran unsuccessfully for Labor preselection for the since amalgamated federal seat of Burke in Melbourne’s northern suburbs in 2001.
USELESS FACT: The WADA case against Essendon (in Sydney as well) is exactly 10 years to the day that Australia qualified for the 2006 FIFA World Cup.
IanRush
Club Player
 
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon 12 Jan 2015 10:57am

Re: Essendope

Postby WellardSaint » Sun 12 Mar 2017 11:38am

How does this thread go from doping to affairs between Bolt n Kitching?
It's getting outta hand
***free White Winmar
Parole date 30 June
***WW is in the same league as the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Benino Acquino,
as well as Aung San Suu Kyi
(a Burmese politician lady who was held under house arrest by the ruling military junta in Burma/Myanmar)...

**making Saintsational Great Again***
WellardSaint
SS Life Member
 
Posts: 3071
Joined: Sat 26 May 2012 11:25am
Location: Red Dwarf- The Jupiter Mining Corp ship

Re: Essendope

Postby 6621104 » Sun 12 Mar 2017 12:02pm

going great guns there numpty- until "serendipitously". Only defrocked bleeding heart liberals would know what that means.
the invisible and the non existent look very much alike
6621104
Club Player
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed 14 Sep 2011 8:33pm
Location: not victoria

Re: Essendope

Postby The OtherThommo » Sun 12 Mar 2017 1:50pm

"Defrocked bleeding heart liberals"?

Oh dear.
"Gad! This comic's a real page turner. It's thlopping over with gripping suspense." - Daffy Duck (just 'cos he's a duck).
The OtherThommo
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sun 27 Feb 2005 2:30am

Re: Essendope

Postby IanRush » Sun 12 Mar 2017 4:03pm

WellardSaint wrote:How does this thread go from doping to affairs between Bolt n Kitching?
It's getting outta hand


Kitching called for a Senate Inquiry into Essendon Doping case. If she is shagging a Journo outside her marriage. And it is known, we can add it here.
USELESS FACT: The WADA case against Essendon (in Sydney as well) is exactly 10 years to the day that Australia qualified for the 2006 FIFA World Cup.
IanRush
Club Player
 
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon 12 Jan 2015 10:57am

Re: Essendope

Postby IanRush » Sun 12 Mar 2017 4:05pm

6621104 wrote:going great guns there numpty- until "serendipitously". Only defrocked bleeding heart liberals would know what that means.


Gee you get scared when we are on the trail. Who are you? Who or what are you trying to protect?
USELESS FACT: The WADA case against Essendon (in Sydney as well) is exactly 10 years to the day that Australia qualified for the 2006 FIFA World Cup.
IanRush
Club Player
 
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon 12 Jan 2015 10:57am

Re: Essendope

Postby sunsaint » Sun 12 Mar 2017 4:08pm

IanRush wrote:
6621104 wrote:going great guns there numpty- until "serendipitously". Only defrocked bleeding heart liberals would know what that means.


Gee you get scared when we are on the trail. Who are you? Who or what are you trying to protect?

Rational thought
Accreditable facts
A Stkilda forum
....
Seeya
Sunsaint
*************
sunsaint
SS Life Member
 
Posts: 3248
Joined: Mon 07 Aug 2006 9:50pm
Location: Queensland - Beautiful one day ... you know the rest

PreviousNext

Return to Saintsational Fan Forum (open to all ages)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], jonesy, longtimesaint, sainta, Sainter_Dad, Saintly66, st.byron, Yahoo [Bot] and 33 guests