She's off again
Honestly, this just gets funnier
As it seems K9 is have some problem in understanding us, let us break this down like we would to a six-year old:Everyone has problems understanding you, because you fart out word salad
Are you talking about the scoping review here? Or the case review undertaken by the Met? I'm going to assume the latter
- There was this man called Gamble who was going to a review about the case of a little girl who disappeared;
No such appointment was in the gift of Gamble
- This man Gamble would control that review control by putting a friend of his, Sutton, in charge of it;
How did they realise this - did Cameron give them a heads-up on who would take which role in his cabinet? Did they correctly forecast the result of the general election? This claim in particular is absolute bollocks, especially as she wasn't expected by any political commentators to move to the Home Office; that came as a surprise
- The people who really, really wanted Gamble to control that review realised that a lady, Theresa May would soon come into a position she could and would determine who would control that review;
So not only did they psychically predict the outcome of a General Election, they predicted a coalition government, that May would be moved from Work and Pensions to the Home office, despite a different MP holding that role in Shadow, but they forecast who she would appoint to head up a review?
- The people who really, really wanted Gamble to control that review realised that Theresa May was going to say that Gamble was not going to control that review;
It was never going to come under the control of Gamble, nor was it ever going to be up to him to appoint it's head
- The people who really, really wanted Gamble to control that review realised that it was best to have no review than to have one that was not controlled by Gamble;
That is literally the most ridiculous thing Textusa has ever claimed
- The people who really, really wanted Gamble to control that review put out a picture of Maddie, properly changed but with what was needed to be seen there, to try to convince Theresa May not to hold a review at all and leave the case alone.
Fucking crystal, yes!
Hope, now it’s clear.
About representing or misrepresenting us, we can only hope K9 has the common decency of not using our work in any way to substantiate any of his opinions.
Nobody in their right mind would pinch your work. You're a raving lunatic.
Edited to add the next chapter in this spat.
Interesting. K9 seems to have read, understood our blood and DNA post but struggles to understand even the simplest breakdown.
Who exactly is being threatened?
How are they being threatened?
In what way does the picture threaten them?
Are all question we won’t answer because we don’t want to. As we said in the beginning, when we answered k9’s FIVE questions (we still have to hear from him about our answers to the other 4) we said we wouldn’t answer fully the question about the photo.
In any case, we have strong reasons to believe K9 knows the answers to all these questions.
"...all questions we won't answer because we don't want to"
Clearly, by the not very subtle hints, she is about to attack K9 personally.