By Stanley Collymore
Just because you're friends with
somebody and in your idiotic
celebrated-lite case Lavinia
Nourse, does not mean you know
all there is about them Amanda.
Several couples: married ones
especially, quite customarily
have several affairs or even
not quite uncommonly too
simultaneously, bigamous
marriages that their very
legitimate spouses never
realise nor know owt of.
And hand on heart, can you
honestly say Amanda that
not once, have you ever
clandestinely, sexually cheated on
somebody who you then were or
even possibly now, are actually
involved with? And, on doing
so, can you honestly say that
you ever actually broadcast
this fact to your colleagues
or loosely euphemistically
so-called friends of yours
at the Daily Mail rag that
you so readily prostitute
yourself to or anywhere
else apt for that matter?
I don't want to know; simply
trying to get you, and your
sort Amanda, to honestly
acknowledge and face your very
own furtive demons! Basically
people can, and generally are
exceedingly, creatively good
at comparmentalizing their
private lives, and similarly
public niceness is often an
elaborate, devious facade!
Furthermore, and rather
crucially also, had the
likes of your dearly
beloved and evidently too clearly
hero-worshipped Jimmy Savile,
Bishop Peter Ball, Rolf Harris
and Max Clifford - who you
Amanda Platell - will very
obviously and rather too
most conveniently now
distance yourself from
while so nauseatingly
dishonestly claiming
you are abhorrently
revolted by all their
sinful perversions -
purely because the
general public did
learn about them;
and the courts too
thanks to the CPS -
even then, as with Lavinia
Nourse recently, loads of
your rather obsequious
sort Amanda Platell were publicly
and similarly in court too saying
how angelic, these paedophiles
and sick sexual abusers really
were! Just as you notoriously
did, with Charles Windsor's
longstanding and personal
rather close friend Bishop
Peter Ball, among several
others within your evilly
and deviant social elites;
while actively getting your
brainwashed and keenly
manipulated also trolls
to think and voice precisely those
identical views, which you hold.
However, rather conveniently
after Jimmy Savile's death: a
significantly gullible Britain
plus the much wider world,
or more appropriately and
accurately those that were
interested, basically came
to truthfully comprehend
the persuasive difference
between such embedded
brownnosing rampantly
and egregiously so from
those, like you Amanda;
and what's truly reality.
(C) Stanley V. Collymore
22 May 2021.
Author's Remarks:
I wish to draw your attention to an article published by the Guardian Newspaper on the 14 January 2020 and written by Harriet Sherwood. The article is entitled: Friendship with Prince Charles made paedophile bishop Peter Ball impregnable. Peter Ball, by the way, was the Church of England's Bishop of Gloucester. The same Christian sect set up by highly lascivious, murderous and dastardly narcissist Henry VIII when the Pope refused to grant his wish for yet another immoral and licentious marriage.
The exact same Church of England that Charles' mother is hereditarily head of, although like Henry VIII she has no religious training for that role and that Charles himself, never mind his plethora of basically immoral and irrefutably adulterous dalliances and quite notably so with Camilla prior to and during his entire marriage to his perceived as broodmare wife Diana, will likewise become head of, again too in his case no religious training at all, when his mother dies; and in this hereditary fashion he becomes king; one of the stark differences between an hereditary imposition and a valid, quite accountable democratic option.
Prior to my publishing this poem of mine I deliberately tweeted the said article earlier mentioned and which categorically debunks virtually all of what fawning Amanda Platell has so idiotically written in her totally trite and absolutely so brownnosing Daily Mail, supposed journalistic article, in a specific reference to Lavinia Nourse and Amanda's own alleged friendship with her. Whatever!
What is abundantly clear however is that as with paedophile Peter Ball the roll call of senior establishment and media figures was similarly there for Lavinia Nourse. A morally motivated jury found Peter Ball guilty; however the jury that was assigned to Lavinia Nourse declared her innocent. It does awkwardly raise the rather pertinent question though, as to how character witnesses, not present at a supposed crime can logically comment at all on something they didn't witness and in so doing influence the outcome of an essentially still ongoing trial!
Crucially also, distinctly vulnerable and abused children: from babies to adolescents, either can not or do not keep detailed records of egregiously inflicted sexual or any other awfully carried out abuse against them. Also, many, who can, hide such abuse since they fear that nobody would actually believe them, until much later in life as adults some wholly so unforeseen trauma or an unexpected experience trigger their suppressed nightmares.
Should that mean then they ought to ignore or forget what so egregiously happened to them; pretend none of it happened, and specifically so if their vile paedophile abusers were drawn from an hereditary monarichal pack,
the aristocratic elite, senior members of the Establishment, the distinctively obscenely wealthy; or their tiresome, fervently social climbing and odious, fawning plebeian serfs? How about justice and equality for all before the law; and isn't that most categorically the specified role of the CPS?
Paedophile Peter Ball, and a personal friend of Charles, got a laughable jail sentence of 32 months - a repulsively lenient setence! And you really don't need to have a Mensa IQ to work out why! As in direct contrast to that any paedophile plebeian would have had a swingeing prison term irrespective of how much he or she supported the class based British status quo. And so begs the questiion: what does that say about you fawning idiots?
In conclusion, Lavinia Nourse finally walks free, relief visibly on her face; but would Amanda Platell still have conveniently, for her Daily Mail hack job still have lauded her as a friend if Lavinia Nourse - distinctly obviously and also a rather unlikely scenario - had been found guilty? I think not!
No comments:
Post a Comment