The question is would you employ the plumber again. I’m disappointed at Edwards’ conduct but I don’t expect him to repay, pro rata, that part of his salary that my licence fee supported, simply that I shouldn’t be expected to continue to pay him to help him behave in way that I believe is morally reprehensible
Tbh the man’s sexual ambitions would be his own but for the fact that he’s using some of my money to further them through an enforced fee that I have to pay. The thought of a man of his age pursuing a teenager solely for sexual gratification is a bit sick-making for me
I mean the Kilpin role in the formation of AC Milan, the role Notts County played in Juve playing in black and white stripes are far more significant than purporting a quasi missionary role in the relationship with a Basque football club. The evidence is well sourced and primary in the first two cases and needy bollocks in the last. I’d be embarrassed if that was us
That’s a selfish and irresponsible position which I thoroughly endorse. More chance of being overheated by Vladimir’s ‘tactical’ weapons than anything else
Isn’t it the case that venues such as the SoL ‘buy’ the act and come to agreements over splitting of certain revenues (ticketing, catering, drinks and so on) giving a guaranteed income to the act? I always thought that was how it worked anyway
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.