Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
It's a comment that can only come from someone who was GIVEN a fortune.

And that could only come from someone who doesn't have one!!!

Edited by Upfront
  • Like 1

Posted

I have often wondered how history will remember people like Gina and Twiggy. Will it be as industrialists who brought riches to Australia, or as fat cats who sought personal wealth at any cost. 

I hope to god, mostly in Gina's case, it is the latter. Otherwise it suggests a scary future.

Posted (edited)
I doubt Gina would want to sterise the poor.

 

Who else is she going to get to work the mines for $2 a day.

 

She'll get the Indians and Chinese in to work for $0.20 a day on 457 visas.

Edited by triode12
  • Like 2
Posted

Did anyone actually open the link, of this obviously satirical article. Perhaps it was the misleading title of the post that led to some readers thinking Ms Hancock actually said this. She does need to be accountable for what she does say, but not for words attributed to her in the name of satire.

In fact, the post header strays close to being legally risky.

I do not approve of most things Ms. Hancock says and does, but fair is fair. it is also meretricious to attack someones' personal appearance, and use derogatory language as has been done here. It is beneath us.

ZM.

  • Like 6
Posted
In fact, the post header strays close to being legally risky

 

While the title of the post was cheeky, i hardly think it legally risky.

 

 

This is a satirical article, sure to create a few waves though. I have already seen a few posts on social media from people not realising Daily Currant is a satirical site

 

I even established in my 1st sentence it was a satire, and even pointed out some ppl on social media had missed this point.

But yes the fact that the article was satirical does seem to have been ignored a tad in the thread, however she has actually said enough in the past to attract negative comments.

Posted
Did anyone actually open the link, of this obviously satirical article. Perhaps it was the misleading title of the post that led to some readers thinking Ms Hancock actually said this. She does need to be accountable for what she does say, but not for words attributed to her in the name of satire. In fact, the post header strays close to being legally risky. I do not approve of most things Ms. Hancock says and does, but fair is fair. it is also meretricious to attack someones' personal appearance, and use derogatory language as has been done here. It is beneath us. ZM.

You beat me to it. I have to admit I am not a fan of Ms Hancock but it is a bit much to criticise her something she has not said. And I would not describe her as fat , just portly!

Guest Willow
Posted (edited)

But yes the fact that the article was satirical does seem to have been ignored a tad in the thread

 

Quite so R , being with an insanely jealous person is like being in a room with a dead mammoth.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by Willow
Posted
You beat me to it. I have to admit I am not a fan of Ms Hancock but it is a bit much to criticise her something she has not said. And I would not describe her as fat , just portly!

 

Perhaps generously portly. With a bit of sherry chucked in as well.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...
To Top