Whitey Grandad Posted 22 May, 2011 Posted 22 May, 2011 What's the point of a court order stopping me from naming someone if won't tell me who it is that I cannot name?
Badger Posted 22 May, 2011 Posted 22 May, 2011 Paper this morning quoted someone on Twitter as referring to "saving ______ privacy".
dune Posted 22 May, 2011 Posted 22 May, 2011 I must be the only person who doesn't know who it is. That said i'm really not interested enough to go on tw4tter to find out.
saint francis Posted 22 May, 2011 Posted 22 May, 2011 Is it George Michael? Perhaps someone could photoshop a pair of shades and some hooped earings, so we can be sure.
Badger Posted 22 May, 2011 Posted 22 May, 2011 I must be the only person who doesn't know who it is. That said i'm really not interested enough to go on tw4tter to find out. Point being though that you don't have to go on to Twitter etc. I was not in the least bit interested in the story this week in the media, and had assumed it was an old story still doing the rounds. The cryptic and not so cryptic clues in the press today though are pretty laughable.
derry Posted 23 May, 2011 Posted 23 May, 2011 Looks like saving private Ryan. Got that wrong didn't they?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now